Burke v. Finley
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Lyon District Court. The opinion states the case. It is unnecessary to-cite authorities to show that, except for the statute, the waiver clause is void.
Read the full summary
Error from Lyon District Court. The opinion states the case. It is unnecessary to-cite authorities to show that, except for the statute, the waiver clause is void. The legislature never meant that a tenant could waive his future personal earnings, needed by his family, unless the court can say that, from the policy of our laws, the legislature is more solicitous for the landlord than for the family of the poor man; that it were better to pay the landlord the last farthing, even if the family starved or went to the almshouse. As soiAe of the many reasons why the legislature never meant what…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Strang, C.:
On September 15, 1888, the plaintiff, W. D. Burke, leased certain premises of the defendant, J. K. Finley, situate in Emporia, Lyon county, Kansas. Said lease contained a waiver of the benefit of the exemption laws of Kansas. Afterward, rent became due on said lease, and suit was brought against the plaintiff therefor, and on the 7th of October, 1889, a judgment was had against him for quite a large sum of money. November 23, thereafter, execution was issued thereon, and garnishment proceedings were run against the A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. Said company answered that it was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mahone v. MahoneSupreme Court of Kansas · 1973
- Iowa Mutual Insurance v. ParrSupreme Court of Kansas · 1962
- Dean v. McMullenOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- West v. GroveSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934
- Mahone v. MahoneSupreme Court of Kansas · 1973