City of Kansas City v. King

Citations

• 65 Kan. 64
• 68 P. 1093
• 1902 Kan. LEXIS 14

Syllabus

<p>SYI/LABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Cities and City Oeitcers — Damage from Sewer — Limita- ' tion of Action. The rule of King v. City of Kansas City, 58 Kan. 334, 49 Pac. 88, followed, and it is held, that a cause of action did not accrue in favor of K. against the city until the sewage and water had been backed through the sewers and precipitated upon his property.</p> <p>2. -Immaterial Amendment to Petition. An amendment to the petition that one of the plaintiffs, originally alleged to be an owner, had no interest in the property injured, was not material and did not change the cause of action, since, under the code, judgment may be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs.</p> <p>3. -- Sewers — Provisions against Floods. In the construction of sewers emptying into a river a city is not-required to provide against phenomenal floods which are beyond reasonable anticipation, but it is required to guard against floods such as have occasionally occurred and which may be reasonably expected to occur again, and, failing to make such provision, it is liable for the consequences of its negligence.</p> <p>4. Practice, District Court — Pequest for Instructions, A request for special findings, made after the court had announced its findings, overruled the motion for a new trial, and entered final judgment, came too late, and no error was committed in refusing such request.</p>