## Facts

- A public road (“McCrary road”) crossed C. G. Anderson’s 640-acre farm and the Republican River via a county bridge in Cloud County, Kansas.
- Due to a branch of the river, the part of Anderson’s farm containing his buildings was effectively isolated, and the bridge provided his only convenient access.
- The Republican River’s channel shifted over time, making the bridge increasingly unhelpful to the general public, though still important to Anderson.
- The Board of County Commissioners appropriated funds and contracted to remove and rebuild (relocate) the bridge.
- Kansas general statutes already authorized county bridge projects and bond financing, but imposed voter-approval requirements for certain bond issues.
- To avoid likely voter rejection, the county pursued and obtained a county-specific statute (1907 special act) authorizing Cloud County to remove/erect bridges over the Republican River and issue bonds for that purpose.
- Anderson sued to enjoin removal/relocation and to have the special act declared unconstitutional; the trial court denied a temporary injunction, and Anderson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1907 county-specific bridge and bond statute violated Kan. Const. art. 2, § 17 (as amended in 1906) because a general law could be made applicable.
2. Whether, after the 1906 amendment, courts must independently determine the applicability of a general law, without deferring to legislative judgment.
3. Whether the usual interpretive rule favoring sustaining statutes applies in challenges brought under art. 2, § 17 (as amended).

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the denial of the temporary injunction.
- The court held that the 1906 amendment to art. 2, § 17 makes applicability of a general law a judicial question, not conclusively determined by the legislature.
- The court held that the ordinary presumption favoring constitutionality does not control in art. 2, § 17 special-legislation challenges.
- The court concluded the 1907 special act was unconstitutional special legislation because general laws governing bridge construction/relocation and bond financing were applicable; political difficulty in obtaining voter approval did not make general law inapplicable.
- The special act was declared void, and the county lacked authority to proceed under it.

## Legal Principles

- Under Kan. Const. art. 2, § 17 (amended 1906), whether a general law can be made applicable is determined by courts as a judicial question, without reliance on legislative assertions.
- When a general statutory scheme can govern the subject matter, a local or special statute directed to a single county is constitutionally prohibited.
- In litigation challenging a statute as impermissible special legislation under art. 2, § 17 (as amended), courts do not apply the usual rule requiring them to uphold a statute whenever reasonably possible.
- A special act cannot be justified merely because it avoids procedural checks (such as voter approval) required by the applicable general law.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Cloud County’s special bridge-bond statute as unconstitutional special legislation and required judicial, nondeferential enforcement of the constitutional mandate to use general laws when they can be applied.


Anderson v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Cloud Cnty., 77 Kan. 721, 95 P. 583 (Kan. 1908)