Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

84 Kan. 45

Harp v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 11, 1911

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1911-02-11

<p>Appeal from Neosho district court.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1913

3 state decisions

Relies on In re Barnhouse · Shinkle v. Meek · Casner v. Gahlman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1911-02-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

West, J.:

¶2This appeal involves only the construction of original section 137 of chapter 34 of the Laws of 1876, entitled “An act to provide for the assessment *46and collection, of taxes” (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 7671),. which required the county treasurer to state in the redemption notice “the amount of taxes charged, and interest calculated to the last day of redemption.”

¶3It is urged that the legislature intended by this provision that the treasurer should state “the amount of taxes, charges, and interest”; that this was shown by the change in the statute made by the legislature (Laws 1905, ch. 499, Gen. Stat. 1909, § 9474), and that Casner v. Gahlman, 6 Kan. App. 295, 60 Kan. 857, and Shinkle v. Meek, 69 Kan. 368, should be overruled.The language of the original section is of itself entirely free from ambiguity, and with its wisdom we have no concern. The argument that' the legislature, having used the expression “taxes, charges, and interest” frequently in the original act, and the words under consideration but once, which words could be made to correspond with the other expressions by placing a comma and changing “d” to “s,” is plausible, but not sufficient to overturn the doctrine of stare clecisis. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

/84/kan/45 · .json · Public domain