Buecher v. Casteen
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from, Meade District Court. On the 13th day of May, 1886, plaintiffs in error commenced this action against the defendants in error, alleging that they were in the occupancy of the premises described in their petition, to wit, eighty acres of land adjoining the town-site of Meade Center; that the said land was entered by the town-site company of Meade Center, under and by virtue of the laws of the United States, and that they then were and still remain the sole…
Read the full summary
Error from, Meade District Court. On the 13th day of May, 1886, plaintiffs in error commenced this action against the defendants in error, alleging that they were in the occupancy of the premises described in their petition, to wit, eighty acres of land adjoining the town-site of Meade Center; that the said land was entered by the town-site company of Meade Center, under and by virtue of the laws of the United States, and that they then were and still remain the sole occupants of the land and entitled to the title thereto, and praying that the corporate authorities of Meade Center be required…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Clogston, C.:
But one question is presented by the record in this action: Did the answer of the defendant set-out such a counterclaim and demand for relief that he was entitled to be heard thereon after the plaintiffs dismissed their cause of action ? The bill of exceptions shows that the mayor and city authorities answered in said action. Their answer is not set out, and we are unable to say what that answer was. There may have been sufficient allegations therein, in connection with defendant’s answer, to raise an issue of fact; and if *144it did, the dismissing of the action by the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gardenhire v. GardenhireSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1894
- Center School Township v. State ex rel. School CityIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898