Ross v. Wellington Lodge No. 133

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Marshall, J.:

This is the second appeal in this case. (Ross v. Odd Fellows Lodge, 94 Kan. 528, 146 Pac. 1003.)

• The contract which is the basis of this action was in part get out in the former opinion. That contract, so far as it is material to the present controversy, reads:

“Witnesseth, That, Whereas, The party of the first part is the owner in fee simple of Lot Twenty-four (24) in Block Fifty-four (54) in the city of Wellington, Kansas, and the party of the second part is the owner in fee simple of Lot Twenty-three (23) in said Block Fifty-four in the…