Field v. Board of County Commissioners

Citations

• 107 Kan. 397
• 191 P. 315
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 85

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Highways — Improvement of Country Roads — Statutes Constitutional. The decision of The State, ex rel., v. Raub, 106 Kan. 196, 186 Pac. 989, involving the constitutionality of the statute providing for the improvement of country roads, following and applied.</p> <p>2. Same — Time in Which Signers May Withdraw Names from Petition. The limitation in the act that signers of a petition for the improvement of roads shall not be permitted to withdraw their names from the petition after the same has been filed with the board of county commissioners, prevents a withdrawal or striking of names from the petition after the prescribed time, even if they were procured by the misrepresentation of those who circulated them.</p> <p>3. Same — Representations Made to Procure Signatures to Petition Not Fraudulent. Representations by the solicitors of signatures as to the cost of the improvement to be made at a future time, and during a period of fluctuating and advancing prices of material, were mere expressions of opinion upon which the petitioners could not rely as grounds of fraud.</p> <p>4. Same. Nor could the petitioners rely on representations of a solicitor interested in the sale of brick, as to the cost of the road, where the petition provided that concrete or brick might be used in the improvement, since the determination of whether it should be built of concrete’ or brick was left to the discretion and judgment of the board of county commissioners.</p>