Fry v. Dunn
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Sedgwick district court; D. M. Dale, judge. STATEMENT. This was an action brought by C. H. Pry, plaintiff below and plaintiff in error here, in the city court of Wichita, to recover the sum of $300 from defendants in error. Fry had judgment in the city court, from which defendants below appealed.
Read the full summary
Error from Sedgwick district court; D. M. Dale, judge. STATEMENT. This was an action brought by C. H. Pry, plaintiff below and plaintiff in error here, in the city court of Wichita, to recover the sum of $300 from defendants in error. Fry had judgment in the city court, from which defendants below appealed. In the district court a motion of the latter to dismiss the action was sustained, on the ground that the city court had no jurisdiction of the case for the reason that the action was based “on a contract for real estate.” The bill of particulars is very long and circumstantial. Its…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Smith, J.:
The city court of Wichita is given the same jurisdiction, with an increase as to amount, that is conferred by law on justices of the peace. *336(Laws 1899, ch. 130.) By express statutory provision jurisdiction is denied to justices of the peace “in actions on contracts for real estate.” (Gen. Stat. 1901, §5235.)
The court below dismissed the case because in its judgment the bill of particulars disclosed that it came within the class of actions over which a justice of the peace was prohibited from taking cognizance. If the action was one “on a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Armour Packing Co. v. HoweSupreme Court of Kansas · 1901
- Schroeder v. WittramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- McClain v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1899
- Campbell v. McClureNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Mushrush v. ClevelandNebraska Supreme Court · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fisher v. GossettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- In Re RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- In re RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911