Finley v. Funk
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Labette District Court. Action brought by James T. Finley against Adam Funk, to recover the sum of $300, alleged to be due under a certain agreement, which is set out at length in the petition.
Read the full summary
Error from Labette District Court. Action brought by James T. Finley against Adam Funk, to recover the sum of $300, alleged to be due under a certain agreement, which is set out at length in the petition. The petition and agreement are as follows: “ The plaintiff, James T. Finley, for cause of action against the defendant, Adam Funk, alleges that he, the plaintiff, is the owner of the S.E. quarter of section 26, township 31, range 17, Labette county, Kansas; that the defendant was at the date first hereinafter mentioned the owner of the S.W. quarter of said section; that for many' years past…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Joi-inston, J.:
Two principal reasons are urged against the sufficiency of the petition, the first of which is that the cause of action attempted to be set forth is based on an agreement to arbitrate a dispute concerning real estate; and it is argued that such a dispute is not. the subject of arbitration. This position cannot be maintained. It seems that in an early day there was some doubt whether controversies concerning land could .be submitted to arbitration, but this doubt can hardly be said to exist now. In discussing what may be the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Schnack v. City of LarnedSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920
- Sheldon v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
- Lewis v. KimballSupreme Court of Kansas · 1918
- Shellberg v. McMahonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Fuller v. WrightSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.