Johnston v. Bowersock
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Johnson district court; John T. Burris, judge. STATEMENT. J. D. Bowersock, under the name of Kansas Water Power Company, executed and delivered to W. B. Cunningham a written contract, the material part of which was in the following words : “This indenture, made and entered into this 29th day of March, 1879, by and between the Kansas Water Power Company, party of the first part, and W. B. Cunningham, party of the second part: “Witnesseth, That the party of the…
Read the full summary
Error from Johnson district court; John T. Burris, judge. STATEMENT. J. D. Bowersock, under the name of Kansas Water Power Company, executed and delivered to W. B. Cunningham a written contract, the material part of which was in the following words : “This indenture, made and entered into this 29th day of March, 1879, by and between the Kansas Water Power Company, party of the first part, and W. B. Cunningham, party of the second part: “Witnesseth, That the party of the first party for a good and sufficient consideration, has this day sold, conyeyed and transferred to the party of the second…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Smith, J.:
Counsel for defendant in error contend, first, that the plaintiff below failed to perform a condition precedent necessary to a recovery under the contract between himself and Bowersock, in that under the written agreement between the latter and Cunningham, which was assigned to Johnston, it was provided that the twenty-five horse-power to which he was entitled was “to be taken from some wheel and penstock yet to be put in by said party of the second part, his heirs or assigns, at some one of the openings in said dam flume as now built that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Packet Co. v. SicklesSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Warner v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Blake v. . VoigtNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Wood v. FowlerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- W. M. W. N.W. Ry. Co. v. WoodTexas Supreme Court · 1895
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hopper v. Lennen & Mitchell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- Frontier Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Hartford Fire InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1972
- Plumlee v. PoagCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Jackson-Walker Coal & Material Co. v. HodgesDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1918
- Professional Bull Riders, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.