Gleason v. Itten
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Saline District Court. ON the 12th of March, 1889, by a nunc pro tunc order, J. M. Itten recovered a judgment upon a verdict rendered in his favor in the court below on the 11th day of December, 1886, against Charles Hegelund, Magnus Buck, August Palmlief, W. E. King, and Walter Younger, defendants. The amount was for $760 debt, and $217.25 costs. No rate of interest was specified.
Read the full summary
Error from Saline District Court. ON the 12th of March, 1889, by a nunc pro tunc order, J. M. Itten recovered a judgment upon a verdict rendered in his favor in the court below on the 11th day of December, 1886, against Charles Hegelund, Magnus Buck, August Palmlief, W. E. King, and Walter Younger, defendants. The amount was for $760 debt, and $217.25 costs. No rate of interest was specified. On the 9th day of April, 1889, an execution was issued to Wallace Gleason, the sheriff of McPherson county, which was by him handed over to the clerk of the district court of that county, with the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hoeton, C. J.:
This was a proceeding in the court below to amerce the sheriff of McPherson county for his failure to return an execution. The defendant below filed his brief within the time prescribed, and also made an elaborate oral argument upon the hearing. The plaintiff below has not filed any brief, and no oral or other argument has been presented in his behalf. In this case the execution debtors had no property in McPherson county whereon to levy the exe*220cution issued to the sheriff of that county, and therefore the neglect of the official duty, of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fisher v. FranklinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- First State Bank of Lovell v. GraybealSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934