Court Opinion

ID: 7886809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 21:42:39.477273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:31:46.500801
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
The sole question in this case is, whether the county of Wichita — which is unorganized — is within the sixteenth, or the twenty-third judicial district of the state.
At the regular July session of the board of county commissioners of Finney county, held in 1885, the county of Wichita was organized as a municipal township of that county. Finney county is situated within the sixteenth judicial district, and is the only organized county adjoining Wichita county. By the provisions of chapter 87, Laws of 1886, approved February 18, 1886, and which took effect February 19, 1886, Wichita county was attached to Finney county for judicial purposes. Chapter 120 of the Laws of 1886, approved February 19, 1886, and which took effect February 20, 1886, created the twenty-third judicial district, comprising the organized counties of Rush, Ness, Ellis, and Trego, and the unorganized counties of Gove, St. John, Wallace, Lane, Scott, Greeley, and Wichita. It was therein provided that the terms of the district court of that judicial district should commence in the counties of Gove, St. John, Wallace, Lane, Scott, Greeley, and Wichita, after the same had been organized, at such time as the judge of the district should order. By the provisions of chapter 81, Laws of 1886, approved February 20, 1886, and which took effect *105February 26, 1886, the county of Wichita was again attached to Finney county for judicial purposes.
The constitution of the state ordains that provision may be made by law for the increase of the number of judicial districts whenever two-thirds of the members of each house shall concur. Such districts shall be formed of compact territory and bounded by county lines, and such increase shall not vacate the office of any judge. (Art. 3, §14.) New or unorganized counties shall by law be attached for judicial purposes to the most convenient judicial district. (Art. 3, §19.)
As Wichita county adjoins Finney on the north, and is an unorganized county, the legislature had ample power under the constitution to attach that county to the judicial district embracing Finney county.
It will be conceded that the legislature had the authority to organize the sixteenth judicial district so as to comprise Wichita county. On the 19th of February the twenty-third judicial district was created, comprising certain organized counties, and also certain unorganized counties, including Wichita, with the provision, however, that courts should not be held in the unorganized counties until after the same had been organized, and at such time as the district judge should order. The act of February 20th, attaching the county of Wichita to Finney for judicial purposes, is the latest expression of the legislature, and as Finney county is a part of the sixteenth judicial district, the act attaching Wichita county to Finney county for judicial purposes attaches it to the sixteenth judicial district, and thereby puts Wichita county, for judicial purposes, within the sixteenth judicial district.
Such construction does not violate any provision of the constitution of the state, and certainly gives full effect to the intent and purpose of the legislature. (In re Holcomb, 21 Kas. 628; The State v. Ruth, 21 id. 583; Ex parte Crawford, 12 Neb. 379.) Such construction does not repeal ch. 120, Laws of 1886, nor destroy the twenty-third judicial district created thereby, but it determines that the county of Wichita is not a part of that *106district under the terms of said ch. 81, approved later than said ch. 120.
Let the peremptory writ of mandamus be issued as prayed for.
All the Justices concurring.