Meyer v. Latta

I cannot agree with the conclusions stated in the court’s opinion.

At the conclusion of the trial below, the trial court made and filed a memorandum opinion in which it reviewed the facts and the law on which it later rendered a judgment, which I think was correct. Insofar as is necessary to note here the trial court said:

“The provisions of Section 55-207 are broader than the provisions of Section 55-208 and wisely so. (But see Skinner vs. Oil Company, 112 Kan. 1.c. 744.) Under the latter section, if Mr. Latta as owner of the drilling rig was acting in the capacity of a general contractor, the…