Title: Babcock v. City of Kansas City

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

Babcock v. City of Kansas City  197 Kan. 610 (1966) 419 P.2d 882 WARREN H. BABCOCK, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, a Municipal Corporation, JOSEPH H. McDOWELL, JOSEPH P. REGAN and EARL B. SWARNER, Appellees and Cross-Appellants. No. 44,682 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed November 5, 1966. Charles W. Thompson, of Kansas City, argued the cause, and Lloyd G. Alvey and James P. Lugar, of Kansas City, were with him on the briefs for appellant and cross-appellee. Joseph A. Bukaty, Assistant City Attorney, of Kansas City, argued the cause, and C.W. Brenneisen, Jr., City Attorney, Matthew G. Podrebarac, City Counselor, James B. Flack and A. B. Howard, Assistant City Attorneys, all of Kansas City, were with him on the briefs for appellees and cross-appellants. Albert B. Martin, General Counsel, Wright W. Crummett and Wendell E. Yockey, of Topeka, were on the brief of League of Kansas Municipalities as amicus curiae. The opinion of the court was delivered by FATZER, J.: This was an action in the nature of quo warranto brought by the plaintiff, Warren H. Babcock, an individual, challenging the validity of seven annexation ordinances enacted by the city of Kansas City and published between February 11, 1965, and *611 June 4, 1965, which substantially enlarged the city both as to population and area. Issues were formed by the parties' pleadings and the case was tried to the district court of Wyandotte County, sitting en banc, upon the parties' written stipulation of facts. The five judges of the district court made unanimous findings of fact and conclusions of law from which both parties have appealed. It is necessary to discuss and decide only the city's contention the district court erred in its conclusion of law that Mr. Babcock, as an individual, had "the legal right to maintain this action." For reasons hereafter stated, we conclude the district court erred in its conclusion of law, and hold that K.S.A. 60-1203 does not authorize or empower a private individual to maintain or prosecute an action questioning the validity of proceedings extending the corporate limits of a city and that such an action can be prosecuted only at the instance of the state by its proper officers. Throughout the history of the jurisprudence of this state, this court has never permitted a private individual to bring an action attacking the legality of the corporate existence of a city, where the plaintiff's right to bring the action was properly challenged. Likewise, it has been uniformly held that the extension of corporate limits to include new territory, under statutory authority, is, in effect, a reorganization of the city, and an action attacking the legality of such reorganization attacks the corporate integrity of the city in the same manner as if the city's original organization were attacked. Moreover, the legality of the organization or reorganization of a city cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding or at the suit of a private individual but must be prosecuted by the state acting through its proper officers. (Topeka v. Dwyer, 70 Kan. 244, 78 Pac. 417; Railway Co. v. Lyon County, 72 Kan. 16, 84 Pac. 1031; Chaves v. Atchison, 77 Kan. 176, 94 Pac. 624; Gardner v. Benn, 81 Kan. 442, 105 Pac. 435; Price v. City of McPherson, 92 Kan. 82, 139 Pac. 1162; Horner v. City of Atchison, 93 Kan. 557, 144 Pac. 1010; Mason v. Kansas City, 103 Kan. 275, 173 Pac. 535; Wellman v. City of Burr Oak, 124 Kan. 780, 262 Pac. 607; Smith v. City of Emporia, 168 Kan. 187, 211 P.2d 101, 13 A.L.R.2d 1272.) The cases are legion on the point and the list of authorities is not intended to be exhaustive. In Bishop v. Sewer District No. 1, 184 Kan. 376, 336 P.2d 815 , the reason for the foregoing rule was said to be well stated in *612 A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Wilson, Treas., 33 Kan. 223, 6 Pac. 281, at page 228, as follows: "`It would be dangerous and wrong to permit the existence of municipalities to depend on the result of private litigation. Irregularities are common and unavoidable in the organization of such bodies, and both law and policy require that they shall not be disturbed except by some direct process authorized by law, and then only for very grave reasons,'" (l.c. 379.) The same general rule has been applied in situations where private individuals have endeavored to challenge the legality of the organization of school districts (A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Wilson, Treas., supra; Schur v. School District, 112 Kan. 421, 210 Pac. 1105; Scamahorn v. Perry, 132 Kan. 679, 296 Pac. 347; School District v. Shawnee County Comm'rs, 153 Kan. 281, 110 P.2d 744), or made claims that drainage districts were illegally or invalidly organized (Railroad Co. v. Leavenworth County, 89 Kan. 72, 130 Pac. 855; Euler v. Rossville Drainage District, 118 Kan. 363, 235 Pac. 95; Kimmel v. Wolf River Drainage Dist., 138 Kan. 209, 25 P.2d 585), or sought to enjoin alleged illegal levies of ad valorem taxes pursuant to G.S. 1949, 60-1121 (now repealed) or K.S.A. 60-907, where the action is based upon alleged illegality or irregularity of the organization of the municipality or district levying the taxes. (A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Wilson, Treas., supra; Schur v. School District, supra; Wellman v. City of Burr Oak, supra; Railway Co. v. School District, 114 Kan. 67, 217 Pac. 296; Shaffer v. Ford County Comm'rs, 133 Kan. 256, 299 Pac. 613.) However, in Schulenberg v. City of Reading, 196 Kan. 43, 51, 410 P.2d 325 K.S.A. 60-907 was construed to permit private individuals to attack ordinances creating a district which had no attributes of corporate existence and levied no taxes. In one form or another, commencing with Craft v. Jackson Co., 5 Kan. 518 *, 313, decided in 1870, to Schulenberg v. City of Reading, supra, decided in 1966, the rule that a private individual cannot challenge municipal procedure and organization has been undeviatingly followed, unless the plaintiff's right to bring the action was not properly challenged. In this connection, the court's opinion in Smith v. City of Emporia, supra, cited the cases of Stewart v. Adams, 50 Kan. 560, 32 Pac. 122; Eskridge v. Emporia, 63 Kan. 368, 65 Pac. 694, and Brown v. Junction City, 122 Kan. 190, 251 Pac. 726, and stated: "Appellant insists that Stewart v. Adams ... and Brown v. Junction City ... require a decision contrary to the one we have heretofore announced. Without laboring what was said or held in those cases it will be *613 noted that the question of the plaintiff's lack of capacity to maintain the action was neither raised nor passed on. For that reason they are not decisive here. The same is true of Eskridge v. Emporia . .." (l.c. 193.) In the recent case of James v. City of Pittsburg, 195 Kan. 462, 407 P.2d 503 , a private individual challenged the city's annexation of adjacent land, and in the opinion it was said: "... Inasmuch as the city gave no notice of cross-appeal, as provided by statute, its contention, as we have heretofore stated it [that plaintiffs are not the proper parties to maintain this action], is not properly before us and may not be considered." (l.c. 463.) As indicated by our numerous decisions, the foregoing rule of universal application has been examined and re-examined with great care and has always been reaffirmed; it is said to be founded upon public policy and has been consistently applied regardless of whether the procedure was a direct attack upon annexation such as here presented (Smith v. City of Emporia, supra; State, ex rel., v. City of Kansas City, 186 Kan. 190, 350 P.2d 37) or an indirect or collateral attack upon annexation such as in Topeka v. Dwyer, supra. The rule has been held applicable to all types of actions attacking the legality of corporate existence of cities and districts regardless of whether the attacking procedure was injunction (Chaves v. Atchison, supra,) quo warranto (State, ex rel., v. City of Kansas City, supra), declaratory judgment (Fairfax Drainage District v. City of Kansas City, 190 Kan. 308, 374 P.2d 35), appeals from an order of the Board of County Commissioners (Lampe v. City of Leawood, 170 Kan. 251, 225 P.2d 73), habeas corpus (In re Short, Petitioner, 47 Kan. 250, 27 Pac. 993), or criminal defense (City of Topeka v. Dwyer, supra). Since it is clear from our decisions that the foregoing rule prohibits private individuals from maintaining actions attacking the validity of proceedings extending the corporate limits of a city, it is necessary to examine the new Code of Civil Procedure, and particularly K.S.A. 60-1203, to ascertain if it made a change of procedure or substance in the statutory law or whether it remained substantially the same. In considering this question, it has been held that a change in phraseology or the deleting of a phrase of the original act raises a presumption that a change of meaning was intended. (State, ex rel., v. Richardson, 174 Kan. 382, 256 P.2d 135 ; Leslie v. Reynolds, 179 Kan. 422, 428, 295 P.2d 1076 .) It has also been held that in determining the legislative purpose, the history of the enactment *614 of the statute and of its amendments may always be inquired into (Atchison, T. & S.F. Rly. Co. v. State Highway Commission, 123 Kan. 576, 255 Pac. 966); that the words of a statute must be taken in the sense in which they were understood at the time the statute was enacted (State, ex rel., v. Moore, 154 Kan. 193, 117 P.2d 598), and that in determining legislative intent, courts are not limited to mere consideration of words employed, but may properly look to the purpose to be accomplished and the necessity and the effect of the statute, under the different constructions suggested (City of Emporia v. Norton, 16 Kan. 236, Syl. ¶ 2; Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Commission of Revenue & Taxation, 163 Kan. 458, 466, 183 P.2d 234). In April, 1960, the Judicial Council appointed an advisory committee of eminent and experienced lawyers and district court judges to draft a suggested revision of the Code of Civil Procedure. The advisory committee's work was carefully considered, and as separate sections of the Code were drafted, they were submitted to the Bench and Bar for specific recommendations. Some of the sections in Chapter 60 were not substantially revised, but the committee made substantial changes in the procedural and the substantive provisions of other sections. However, as the sections were submitted, the committee appended valuable advisory notes so the Bench and the Bar would be informed of what was intended. In the November, 1962, Special Report of the Judicial Council Bulletin, the preface reads, in part: "This bulletin presents recommendations for the revision of ... Quo Warranto.... "This issue completes the recommendations for the revision of the Code of Civil Procedure. The recommendations will be corrected to reflect the suggestions made by the members of the bar, and a bill drafted for the requested approval by the legislature." On pages 3 and 4 of that special report were the following recommendations of the advisory committee, in part: "ARTICLE 14 QUO WARRANTO" "60-1402. Jurisdiction and Grounds ..." "COMMITTEE