Harrison v. Henderson
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Shawnee district court; Z. T. Hazen, judge. STATEMENT. Henderson was a resident of Pittsburg, Pa., and was appointed administrator of the estate of Samantha Johnson, deceased, by the court there. As such administrator he had for collection two notes secured by mortgages in Topeka. He employed Harrison, who is an attorney residing in Topeka, for the purpose of collecting these notes by foreclosure.
Read the full summary
Error from Shawnee district court; Z. T. Hazen, judge. STATEMENT. Henderson was a resident of Pittsburg, Pa., and was appointed administrator of the estate of Samantha Johnson, deceased, by the court there. As such administrator he had for collection two notes secured by mortgages in Topeka. He employed Harrison, who is an attorney residing in Topeka, for the purpose of collecting these notes by foreclosure. The account growing out of that relationship continued from May, 1894, until March, 1898, during which time the administrator remitted various sums of money to apply on fees and expenses,…
1Opinion of the Court
*197The opinion of the court was delivered by
Cunningham, J.:
There are two questions raised by the plaintiff in error. The first is on the facts, it being claimed that the report of the re'feree and judgment of the district court are not binding upon this court; that, as all of the evidence introduced before the referee is in the record here, we may look into it as though we were trying the case de novo, and that upon doing so we will come to a conclusion different from that of the referee and trial court. Granting that the findings of the referee and their approval by the district court are not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brigham v. DanaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Pottlitzer v. WessonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- Perkins v. HeadleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Beckman v. Birchard, Bridge & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Kingsville Preserving Co. v. FrankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Ex Parte Southern Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Lapp-Gifford Co. v. Muscoy Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Ingram v. SausetWashington Supreme Court · 1922
- Prather v. Colorado Oil & Gas Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1975
- Neely v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.