Case Name: Joseph Sargent, County Clerk of Saline County, v. Isaac A. Burch
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1881-07
Citations: 26 Kan. 581
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Sargent, County Clerk of Saline County, v. Isaac A. Burch.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
Joseph Sargent, County Clerk of Saline County, v. Isaac A. Burch.
Drainage; Liability of County. Chapter 34 of the Compiled Laws of 1879, pages 381 to 386, is constitutional to the extent that a county may become liable under it, through its county clerk, to pay its proportionate share of the cost of constructing a ditch, which ditch is constructed under and in accordance with said chapter, and drains and benefits a public county road.
Error from Saline District Court.
Action brought by Burch against Sargent, as county clerk of Saline county, to compel defendant, as such officer, to duly issue to plaintiff a warrant for $94.90, directing the treasurer of that county to pay plaintiff said sum — the same being due from the county as its proportionate share of the cost, of a certain ditch, which had been constructed in accordance with the provisions of ch. 34, Comp. Laws of 1879. Trial at the August Term, 1880, of the district court, when it was ordered that the defendant issue the warrant prayed for, and costs were adjudged against him. Sargent brings the case here.
John Gr. Spivey, county attorney, for plaintiff in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
The plaintiff in his brief says: "The question which plaintiff in error seeks to raise in this case is, the constitutionality of chapter 34 of the Compiled Laws of 1879, (pp. 381-386,) on drainage, if this case is included in said chapter."
The real question involved in this case is, however, much narrower than the one stated by the plaintiff in error. It is as follows: Is the said chapter so far constitutional that a county may become liable under it, through its county clerk, to pay its proportionate share of the cost of constructing a ditch, which ditch is constructed under and in accordance with said chapter, and drains and benefits a public county road?
To the extent that we have stated the question, we think the chap ter is constitutional; and whether it is unconstitutional or not in any other respect, we need not consider. Indeed, we do not think that it is necessary to discuss the question actually involved in the case in detail. We perceive no error in the rulings of the court below, and therefore its judgment will be affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.