Case Name: The State of Kansas, ex rel. J. F. Bennett, County Attorney of Norton County, Plaintiff, v. The State Highway Commission of Kansas, Defendant; The State of Kansas, ex rel. Roland Boynton, Attorney-general, Plaintiff, v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Norton, Defendant
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1934-06-09
Citations: 139 Kan. 655
Docket Number: No. 30,839; No. 30,968
Parties: The State of Kansas, ex rel. J. F. Bennett, County Attorney of Norton County, Plaintiff, v. The State Highway Commission of Kansas, Defendant. The State of Kansas, ex rel. Roland Boynton, Attorney-general, Plaintiff, v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Norton, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 655–655

Head Matter:
No. 30,839
No. 30,968
The State of Kansas, ex rel. J. F. Bennett, County Attorney of Norton County, Plaintiff, v. The State Highway Commission of Kansas, Defendant. The State of Kansas, ex rel. Roland Boynton, Attorney-general, Plaintiff, v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Norton, Defendant.
(33 P. 2d 330.)
Opinion denying a rehearing filed June 9, 1934.
(For original opinion allowing the writ in case No. 30,968 and denying the writ in case No. 30,839, see 138 Kan. 294, 26 P. 2d 606.)
Roland Boynton, attorney-general, Wint Smith, assistant attorney-general, and Arthur J. Mellott, of Kansas City, for the plaintiff.
J. F. Bennett, county attorney, Thomas Amory Lee, of Topeka, and Robert W. Hemphill, of Norton, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Smith, J.:
In these two actions an opinion denying the writ in case No. 30,839 and allowing it in case No. 30,968 was filed November 11,1933. The case is reported in 138 Kan. 294, 26 P. 2d 606. On motion for rehearing the questions raised have been reexamined. What is said in the opinion of this court in the case of State, ex rel., v. The State Highway Comm., post, p. 858, is determinative of the questions raised in these two actions.
The judgment denying the writ in case No. 30,839 and allowing it in case No. 30,968 is adhered to.