Washburn v. Board of County Commissioners

Citations

• 103 Kan. 169
• 172 P. 997
• 1918 Kan. LEXIS 210

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Highways — Improvements—Apportionment of Costs — Power of Legislature. Where proceedings for the improvement of a highway are begun under a statute providing that one-fourth of the cost shall be paid by the township and the remainder charged against the land in a benefit district, it is competent for the legislature thereafter to change the distribution so that the cost shall fall one-fourth on the township, one-half on the county, and the remainder upon the land in the benefit district. The owner of the specially benefited land is not prejudiced, for his burden is lightened, and the general taxpayers of the county have no legal ground of complaint, because it is within the discretion of the legislature to impose any part of the cost of a highway upon the county.</p> <p>2. Same — Improvements—Apportionment of Costs — Notice to Taxpayers. In such a statute no provision is necessary for notice to the owners of property other than land in the benefit district, for as to them the tax is general; or if it is regarded as special, they are conceived as having notice through their representatives in the legislature, that body having itself determined the apportionment of the burden.</p> <p>3. Same — Bids for Construction of “Hard-surface Road” — No Departure from Petition. A call for bids for the construction of “a hard-surface road of ‘bituminous macadam’ ” shows no departure from the requirements of a petition for a roadway of “crushed stone or macadam with a top surface of Burmudez asphalt, or other asphalt equally as good, employing what is known-as the ‘penetration method.’ ”</p>