Case Name: C. C. Epp, Appellee, v. Charles R. Hinton et al., Appellants
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1914-03-19
Citations: 91 Kan. 919
Docket Number: No. 18,613
Parties: C. C. Epp, Appellee, v. Charles R. Hinton et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
OPINION DENYING A REHEARING.
No. 18,613.
C. C. Epp, Appellee, v. Charles R. Hinton et al., Appellants.
Appeal from Harvey district court; Charles E. Branine, judge.
Opinion denying a rehearing, but modifying order heretofore made, filed March 19, 1914.
(For original opinion see ante, p. 513, 138 Pac. 576.)
Albert HosJdnson, R. W. HosJcinson, both of Garden City, and Granby Hillyer, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellants.
Clarence Spooner, Ezra Branine, and H. W. Hart, all of Newton, for the appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mason, J.:
Upon full consideration of a petition for a rehearing, the court adheres to the views already expressed upon the merits of the case. (Epp v. Hinton, ante, p. 513, 138 Pac. 576.) The appellants specifically ask, however, that in the event of the overruling of the petition for a rehearing the order already made be modified so that upon the further trial evidence may be introduced upon the actual value of the dry land, as well as upon what its value would have been had it been irrigable. The defendants say that, relying upon the proposition that no evidence had been introduced upon the latter proposition, they did not feel called upon to offer evidence upon the former. No injustice can result from a full examination of the matter, and the amendment asked for will be made.
The petition for a rehearing is denied, but it is directed that the district court, upon such evidence as the parties shall offer, shall find the actual value of the land, and what its value would have been had it been irrigable, and render judgment for the difference.