Skip to main content
· 1/9/1915

Bishop v. Fischer

Citations

  • 94 Kan. 105
  • 145 P. 890
  • 1915 Kan. LEXIS 53

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Mandamus — Vacating Restraining Order Issued by District Court Without Jurisdiction — Obstructing Flow of Gas Into Pipe Line — Special Appearance. The plaintiffs’ lessee bored producing gas wells on the plaintiffs’ land and on the lessee’s land, and connected the wells by pipes converged in a building erected by the lessee on the plaintiffs’ land, where a meter, a pressure gauge, and other gas appliances were installed. From this point the gas produced was conducted to a pipe line located -in a highway alongside the plaintiffs’ land. The pipe line belonged to a corporation for which a receiver was appointed by the district court. The receiver was authorized by the court to purchase gas from the plaintiffs’ lessee, which the receiver distributed to consumers. The plaintiffs took possession of the building, pipes, and appliances on their own land and stopped the flow of gas into the pipe line under a claim of right predicated upon their contract with the lessee. Upon application made in the receivership suit, the receiver procured an order directing a person designated by the court to remove the obstructions preventing the flow of gas into the pipe line and enjoining the plaintiffs from maintaining such obstruction or interfering with the order. Neither the plaintiffs nor their lessee were parties to the receivership suit, and the order was procured without notice to them. The order having been executed, the plaintiffs moved to set it aside because it had been made without jurisdiction. The court modified the order but did not vacate it. Held, the court had no jurisdiction over the parties or over the property affected by the order, the order was void, and the court may be required by writ of mandamus issuing from this court to set aside the order.</p> <p>2. Same — No General Appearance. The contents of the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the order considered and held not to constitute a general appearance in the receivership suit.<

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing the validity of public dedications

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Burch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.