Legal Opinion

Metz v. Hicklin

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 7, 1928No. 28,183PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*517The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, C. J.:

This was an action in mandamus to compel the delivery by officers of the proceeds of property sold upon execution to satisfy a judgment. Hettie Metz sued O. P. Hicklin, marshal of the city court of Wichita, and B. L. Bayman, clerk of that court, alleging that she had recovered a judgment against H. L. Oliver, which had not been paid; that an execution had been issued thereon and placed in the hands of the marshal; that he had levied on a crop of growing, wheat and made a sale of the same for $440, but had failed to turn over to the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Treptow v. BuseSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
  2. Cates v. KnappSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
  3. Ramsey v. PetersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
  4. Walker v. BradenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
  5. City of Kansas City v. StewartSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Proto v. Missoula CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Simmons v. ClarkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1940
  3. Howard v. HowardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1939
  4. Stewart & Horton Trust Account v. AutrandNevada Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Larned Production Credit Ass'n v. E & E FeedingCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1982

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

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

Powered by the Exa API