STATE EX REL. MEEK

V.

KANSAS CITY.

Kansas Supreme Court-November 14, 1914.

93 Kan. 420; 144 Pac. 218.

"Any" - Legal Meaning of Term.

Section 1220, General Statutes of 1909, which authorizes cities of the first class by ordinance to extend their corporate limits so as to include any tract of unplatted land not exceeding 20 acres whenever the same "is so situated that two-thirds of any line or boundary thereof lies upon or touches the boundary line of such city," means whenever two-thirds of any single boundary line or side of such tract lies upon or touches the boundary line of such city; the word "any” being construed as used in the sense of one indifferently, out of an indefinite number. [See note at end of this case.] (Syllabus by court.)

Appeal from District Court, Wyandotte county: HUTCHINGS, Judge.

Action by State, on relation of James M. Meek, plaintiff, against City of Kansas City, defendant. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. AFFIRMED.

James M. Meek, J. E. McFadden and O. Q. Claflin, Jr., for appellant.

Richard J. Higgins and W. H. McCamish for appellee.

[420] PORTER, J.-In this case the state, on the relation of the county attorney of Wyandotte county, questions the validity of certain ordinances passed by the city of Kansas City, for the annexation of certain The court sustained territory to the city.

a demurrer to the petition and rendered judgAnn. Cas. 1916E.-1.

ment in favor of the city, from which the plaintiff has appealed.

The sole question involves the proper construction to be placed upon the language of section 1220 of the General Statutes of 1909, authorizing the extension of the limits and boundaries of cities of the first class. [421] The portion of the statute to be construed reads:

"Whenever any land adjoining or touching the limits of any city has been subdivided into blocks and lots, or whenever any unplatted piece of land lies within (or mainly within) any city, or any tract not exceeding twenty acres is so situated that two-thirds of any line or boundary thereof lies upon or touches the boundary-line of such city, said lands, platted or unplatted, may be added to, taken into and made a part of such city by ordinance duly passed."

Our attention has been called to an error in the printed statute which is not of much consequence. The word "or" is substituted for the word "of," as appears from the original draft of the act, which was House bill No. 116. The statute should read: "two-thirds of any line of boundary," instead of "two-thirds of any line or boundary." It is the contention of appellant that the statute should be construed to mean two-thirds of the entire boundary of any unplatted tract not exceeding twenty acres; that is to say, that the legislature meant two-thirds of the entire boundary or perimeter of such tract. The trial court upheld the city's contention and construed the statute to mean the same as if it had read: "Having any one side or boundary, two-thirds of which lies upon or touches the boundary-line of such city."

The precise question has never been before the court. Both plaintiff and defendant quote from the language of the court in the opinion in the case of Chaves v. Atchison, 77 Kan. 176, 93 Pac. 624, where, in speaking of the provision for annexing territory to cities of the first class, it was said: