Case Name: Alice Coates et al. v. P. J. Nugent et al.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1907-06-08
Citations: 76 Kan. 556
Docket Number: No. 15,060
Parties: Alice Coates et al. v. P. J. Nugent et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 556–563

Head Matter:
Alice Coates et al. v. P. J. Nugent et al.
No. 15,060.
(92 Pac. 597.)
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. Municipal Corporations — Establishment of Sewer Districts-—Apportionment of the Cost. The provision of the statute regarding the establishment of sewer districts' that- “where any property has paid its full proportion for general sewers and drains in one district it shall not be transferred to any other and made liable for the construction of sewers or drains therein” (Laws 1903, ch. 122, § 149) is intended to prevent charging property which has already contributed to the cost of one sewerage system with a part of the cost of another which as to such property may be regarded as a substitute for the first; it does not forbid the creation of a minor division or subdistrict out of a part of the territory of a principal district and charging the property therein with the cost of a lateral or tributary sewer which is constructed for the special benefit of such property, nor the further creation of a yet smaller district within such subdistrict and charging it with’the cost of subsidiary sewerage designed for its especial benefit.
2. - Compliance with the Statute — Evidence. The evidence in this case examined and held not to show any violation of the statute referred to.
3. -Special Benefits — Conelusiveness of Legislative Determination. The determination of a legislative body that a certain tract of land is specially benefited by a proposed local improvement is conclusive upon a court in any case admitting of substantial difference of opinion. If the owner seeks to enjoin the enforcement of an assessment upon the ground that his land receives no benefit he assumes the burden of showing conclusively that no such benefit is possible, and a failure on his part to produce evidence regarding conditions by which the matter might be affected is fatal to his success.
4. -Evidence Insufficient to Negative Possibility of Benefit. Where a tract of land in front of which a sewer has already been constructed is charged with a part of the cost of an extension along the same street, proof that it is not at the present time drained into-such extension does not conclusively establish that it cannot possibly receive a benefit therefrom.
Error from Wyandotte court of common pleas; William G. Holt, judge.
First opinion filed June 8, 1907.
Affirmed.
Rehearing granted July 5, 1907.
Opinion on rehearing filed November 9, 1907.
Reaffirmed.
E. H. Wooley, and W. L. Cowden, for plaintiffs in error; Pratt & Dana, and Ward, Hadley & Neil, of counsel.
H. L. Alden, city counselor, and Ralph Nelson, city attorney, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
A sewer was built along a street of Kansas City, Kan., running east and west, for a distance of five blocks, and its cost was charged against a sewer district (or subdistrict) consisting of the ten abutting blocks and the two blocks lying immediately east of them. Thereafter such sewer was extended one block further to the east, the cost of this extension being charged to' a further subdistrict consisting of the four half blocks surrounding the point from which .such extension was made — the east end of the sewer first built. Owners of property in this second subdistrict brought a suit for an injunction to test the validity of such proceedings.
While the right asserted is claimed under the statute, the question presented is really one of justice and fairness. The argument made in support of the plaintiffs' contention is that, inasmuch as the property of the new subdistrict bore its proportionate share of the cost of building the sewer for five blocks, it cannot equitably be charged with more than a like proportion of the cost of the extension — that the cost of the one block extension should have been apportioned in the same way as that of the five blocks of sewer first built, and assessed against all of the first subdistrict. The difficulty with this argument is that it assumes that what is called the extension is simply in all respects one-sixth of a sewer six blocks long — that the relation of each block to the entire sewer is the same as that of every other block— that the relation of each block to the part of the sewer on which it abuts is the same as that of any other block to the corresponding part of the sewer. Of the correctness of this assumption we have no means of judging. It may be that the local topography is such that all of the twelve blocks comprising the original subdistrict were benefited by the building of the five blocks of sewer first constructed, and that the four half-blocks, and they only, were benefited by the new sewer one block long, called the extension. If so the apportionment adopted was obviously equitable, and if it' was equitable we do not understand that the plaintiffs claim there is any provision of the statute that would defeat it. The record shows nothing of the grade, or of the character of the soil, or of other conditions that might affect the matter. The situation may have been such that the council might reasonably have regarded the apportionment made as a just one, and in that case their decision is not subject to review.
The judgment denying the injunction is affirmed.