and decisive issues in this appeal notwithstanding the fact sixteen trial errors were alleged and the appeal is based on nineteen specifications of error. This case has been before this court on four previous occasions. (Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha, 179 Kan. 72, 293 P. 2d 241; City of Hesston v. Smrha, 184 Kan. 223, 336 P. 2d 428; City of Hesston v. Smrha, 186 Kan. 477, 351 P. 2d 204; Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha, 186 Kan. 785, 352 P. 2d 1053.)
The parties stipulated the only question on appeal is whether the above-mentioned act is constitutional under both our federal and state constitutions. It is further contended by appellants, the chief engineer, and the city of Wichita, that the same question was determined in
Williams v. City of Wichita, 190 Kan. 317, 374 P. 2d 578 (app. dis.
375 U. S. 7, 84 S. Ct. 46, 11 L. ed. 2d 38, pet. for rehearing denied, 375 U. S. 936, 84 S. Ct. 328, 11 L. ed. 2d 267), where the act was held to be constitutional, and appellees also recognize the question was answered in the Williams case. The only further argument propounded by the appellees is that the Williams decision is erroneous and should be overruled.
Reference is hereby made to the opinion in the Williams case for a full disclosure of facts and a complete discussion of all the authorities, which need not be reiterated herein.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Schroeder, J., dissents.
Fontron, J., not participating.