Paola Town Co. v. Krutz
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Miami District Court. At the February Term, 1879, the district court sustained' a demurrer to the amended petition filed by the Paola Town Company against Krutz, and gave judgment accordingly for the defendant, and against the plaintiff Town Company, which brings the case here. The opinion has a sufficient statement of the facts.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hokton, C. J.:
This is the second time that this case has been in this court. (Krutz v. Paola Town Company, 20 Kas. 397.) Upon the return of the case to the court below, and after judgment of reversal had been entered, the plaintiff, with leave of the court, filed an amended petition. To this the defendant demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, .and the plaintiff brings the case here. Different questions are submitted for our determination than when the case was considered on the former occasion. Then the principal question involved was, whether…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- City of Atchison v. TwineSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Hanlin v. BaxterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
- Krutz v. Paola Town Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1878
3Cited by10 opinions
- Venable Bros. v. Southern Granite Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Norton v. SteinfeldArizona Supreme Court · 1930
- MacRae v. Kansas City Piano Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- Hecht Bros. Clothing Co. v. WalkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1931
- Morisse v. BillauOhio Court of Appeals · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.