Skip to main content
· 6/5/1920

Kansas Electric Utilities Co. v. Kansas City, Kaw Valley & Western Railway Co.

Citations

  • 108 Kan. 285
  • 195 P. 889
  • 1921 Kan. LEXIS 32

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Specific Performance- — Contract to Convey and Transfer Certain Street Railway Property — Consideration. The contract sued on was not void for want of consideration.</p> <p>2. Same — Contract—Assignment Valid. The contract under which the plaintiff claims was by its terms made assignable and its assignment— having been recognized by the parties and by the city in various ways during a course of dealing covering several years — is held valid.</p> <p>3. Same — Street Railroad Franchise — ■Within the City — Not Under Jurisdiction of State Utilities Commission. The franchise granted to the plaintiff’s assignor covered a street-car system located within the city of Lawrence and was therefore not under the jurisdiction of the state utilities commission, and the consent of that body to its assignment to the plaintiff was not necessary.</p> <p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Specific Performance — Consideration for Contract. There was ample consideration for the contract sued on, and there was no failure of any part of that consideration.</p> <p>2. Same — Valid Contract Between Street Railway Company and Interurban Railroad Company. A contract may be made between a street-railway company and an interurban railroad company by which the latter obtains the right to run its cars over the tracks of the former.</p> <p>3. Same — Certain Property Included in Contract. The tracks in the 500 and 600 blocks on Massachusetts street (from Seventh street north to the south end of the bridge across the Kansas river) in Lawrence, were not excluded from the operation of the contract between the Lawrence Railway & Light Company and the Kansas City, Kaw Valley & Western Railway Company.</p> <p>4. Same — Contract Neither Ultra Vires nor Void. The contract was neither ultra vires nor void.</p> <p>5. Same — Parties to Contract Rightfully Occupying City Streets. The streets of the city of Lawrence are occupied by the plaintiff and the defendant under ordinance

Judges: Marshall, Porter, West

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.