Case Name: James Haggart et al. v. The City of Kansas City et al.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1907-06-08
Citations: 77 Kan. 798
Docket Number: No. 15,395
Parties: James Haggart et al. v. The City of Kansas City et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 798–800

Head Matter:
James Haggart et al. v. The City of Kansas City et al.
No. 15,395.
(94 Pac. 789.)
1. Municipal Corporations — Pavement Proceedings — Curative Act. It was said that inasmuch as the legislature can grant or refuse property owners in cities the privilege of designating the kind of material to be used in paving streets it can cure a proceeding that was defective because one kind of material was used instead of another.
2. -Injunction — Collection of a Tax — Res Judicata. A judgment holding a city ordinance authorizing the paving of a street to be invalid held not res judicata in a suit to enjoin the collection of a tax for paving the street under a new ordinance.
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 March 7, 1908.
Reaffirmed.
Getty & Hutchings, for plaintiffs in error.
H. L. Alden, city counselor, Ralph Nelson, city attorney, J. W. Dana, and T. A. Pollock, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
This suit was brought to enjoin the city of Kansas City and its officers from collecting a reassessment of the cost of paving a part of Fifth street in that city. The petition in the case is very long and no good purpose would be subserved in reproducing it at length here.
A general demurrer was filed by the defendants to the petition, and the demurrer was sustained by the court. The plaintiffs elected to stand on their petition, the injunction was denied, and they bring the case here to reverse the order.
It is urged that the plaintiffs, or others who then owned the real property against which the reassessment is now levied and to restrain the collection of which this suit was brought, in a former action, before a court of competent jurisdiction, on the same facts and under the same law, obtained a perpetual injunction debarring the defendants from doing the very acts which it is sought to enjoin them from doing by this suit. This judgment, it is said, is res judicata, and estops the defendants. The petition, however, shows that the injunction pleaded was under a different ordinance, which was passed prior to the enactment of chapter 122 of the Laws of 1903.
On the authority of Kansas City v. Silver, 74 Kan. 851, 85 Pac. 805, it is held that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the order and judgment of the court are affirmed.