Brumbaugh v. Schmidt
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Marshall District Court. The opinion contains a/ sufficient statement of the fácts to a proper understanding of the questions determined. The case was tried at the October Term 1870. The court made separate findings of fact and of law, and gave judgment in favor of Schmidt, plaintiff below.
Read the full summary
Error from Marshall District Court. The opinion contains a/ sufficient statement of the fácts to a proper understanding of the questions determined. The case was tried at the October Term 1870. The court made separate findings of fact and of law, and gave judgment in favor of Schmidt, plaintiff below. Brumbaugh excepted, and a new trial being refused he brings the case here on error. 1. The first question is, Had Magill authority to sell Mrs. Woodley’s interest in the land, as her agent? The court below found as matter of fact that he had not. In this we claim the court erred; and an…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by'
Kingman, C. J.:
1. Findings; evidence. The defendant in error, claiming to be the owner of an undivided one-half of a quarter-section of land in- Marshall county, brought his action to settle the question as to the title between himself and plaintiff in error. The pleadings admit the ownership of one-half of the tract to have been in Mrs. L. A. Woodley, widow of A. D. Woodley deceased. The defendant in error has her title by virtue of a deed dated Oct. 7, 1869. The plaintiff in error claims title by virtue of a sale made to him by Magill, as the agent…
2Cited by6 opinions
- City of Wyandotte v. GibsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Winstead v. StandefordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
- Grandstaff v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
- Hill v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
- Brewster v. HallSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.