Case Name: The Kaw Valley Drainage District of Wyandotte County, Appellant, v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Wyandotte, Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1925-01-10
Citations: 117 Kan. 375
Docket Number: No. 25,534
Parties: The Kaw Valley Drainage District of Wyandotte County, Appellant, v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Wyandotte, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 375–375

Head Matter:
No. 25,534.
The Kaw Valley Drainage District of Wyandotte County, Appellant, v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Wyandotte, Appellees.
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 3; William H. Mc-Camish, judge.
Opinion filed January 10, 1925.
Affirmed.
Thomas A. Pollock, of Kansas City, for the appellant.
Luther Burns, John E. DuMars, both of Topeka, and O. L. Miller, of Kansas City, for appellee The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company; J. H. Brady, and T. F. Bailsback, both of Kansas City, for appellee the board of county commissioners.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Johnston, C. J.:
This case involved the right of the Kaw Valley drainage district to the writ of mandamus to compel The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and the commissioners of Wyandotte county to remove the wreckage of two bridges, one of which was owned by the railway company and the other by the county, and which were washed away in the flood of 1903.
It was contended that the wreckage was in the bed of 'the river, that it obstructed navigation and reduced the carrying capacity of the channel. An order was made by the plaintiff for the removal of the same, which the trial court held could not be enforced by mandamus.
The questions involved are substantially the same as were considered in Drainage District v. Wyandotte County et al., ante, p. 369, just decided, and following that authority the judgment rendered in this case' must be affirmed.