Legal Opinion

Cunningham v. Hill

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 3, 1909No. 16,140PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error from Jackson district court; Marshall GepHART, judge.

1Per curiam

The contract upon which this action was brought provided for a penalty in case of breach and not for stipulated damages. The principles of law governing the case are fully stated and well illustrated in the following decisions of this court: St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Shoemaker, 27 Kan. 677; Heatwole v. Gorrell, 35 Kan. 692; Condon v. Kemper, 47 Kan. 126; Land Co. v. Barton, 51 Kan. 554; Davidson v. Hughes, 76 Kan. 247; Railroad Co. v. Gaba, 78 Kan. 432; Bank v. Burlington, 79 Kan. 797.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Condon v. KemperSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
  2. Heatwole v. GorrellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
  3. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. GabaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
  4. Davidson v. HughesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
  5. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kuter v. State BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API