Comstock v. Robertson
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Clark district court; Edward H. Madison, judge. STATEMENT. Plaintiff in error brought an action in ejectment to recover certain land in Clark county. The briefs of plaintiff and defendant indicate that there was no controversy as to the facts. The land in question was owned by F. E. Chaddock, who was a non-resident of the state.
Read the full summary
Error from Clark district court; Edward H. Madison, judge. STATEMENT. Plaintiff in error brought an action in ejectment to recover certain land in Clark county. The briefs of plaintiff and defendant indicate that there was no controversy as to the facts. The land in question was owned by F. E. Chaddock, who was a non-resident of the state. Arnold & Carson, a firm of abstracters, of which C. W. Carson was a member, brought an action against Chaddock to recover $5.60 for making an abstract, attached this land, recovered judgment on void service by publication, had the land sold at sheriff’s…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Smith, J.:
Here is the situation: The plaintiff is about to acquire a quitclaim deed to 160 acres of land for $100 — one-half of the government price for preemptive lands. He goes to the office of the register of deeds and traces the title from the United States to F. E. Chaddock. The next entry is of a deed by the sheriff of the county to William Riley of all the interest of F. E. Chaddock in the lands, then a deed from Riley to Heffner, and then one from Heffner to Lydia M. Robertson. Then we imagine he says: “What is this? A deed from F. E. Chaddock…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Northwestern Mutual Savings & Loan Ass'n v. HansonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1943
- Miles v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
- Rogers v. DumasSupreme Court of Kansas · 1949