Legal Opinion

Kimball v. Bell

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1892PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Motion for Rehearing. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion herein, filed at the session of the court in June, 1892.

1Per curiam

We have carefully reexamined the record, and find the statement contained in the opinion handed down, that “the defendant below made no showing or offered to show that the mortgage (which was a lien or encumbrance upon the blocks purchased) had in fact been paid,” is correct. 47 Kas. 757. If the mortgage was released or discharged before the trial, as is now claimed, this should have been shown upon the trial. If any evidence had been offered showing such release or discharge, and the trial court had ruled it out, we would promptly reverse the case. The only release offered in evidence was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kimball v. BellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Looney v. ReevesCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1897
  2. Allen v. GheerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  3. Bryant v. GlennSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934
  4. De Hart v. EveleighSupreme Court of Kansas · 1935
  5. Jones v. GallagherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API