Barrett v. Butler
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Marshall County. The petition contains a sufficient statement of the facts of the case. 1. “ That the facts stated in the petition do not constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant,” is good cause for arresting a judgment and granting a new trial. Kelsey v. Weston, 2 Comst., 500, 506; Higgins v. Freeman, 2 JDuer, 650; Febble v. Cuphinger, 13 Ben.
Read the full summary
Error from Marshall County. The petition contains a sufficient statement of the facts of the case. 1. “ That the facts stated in the petition do not constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant,” is good cause for arresting a judgment and granting a new trial. Kelsey v. Weston, 2 Comst., 500, 506; Higgins v. Freeman, 2 JDuer, 650; Febble v. Cuphinger, 13 Ben. Monr., [Ü3/.,] 464; Belty v. Wilber, 14 id., 247; 19 Ohio, 289. 2. The petition is defective in not containing a sufficient allegation of performance, or offer to perform, of payment or tender of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Saeeord, J.
This was an action brought in the district court of Marshall county, by David Butler and James W. Hollinshead, partners, etc., against A. G. Barrett, to recover damages for an alleged breach by and on the part of the said Barrett, of a contract which had before that time been entered into between the parties. The record purports to set out the said contract and agreement, which was in the words and figures following, to-wit, “ Exhibit A.”
[Bevenue stamp.]
“July 30, 1866, sold to Butler & Hollinshead, sixty-seven, three, four and five year old steers, at forty dollars per…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Mitchell v. MilhoanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Emery v. BennettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Campbell v. CoonradtSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
- Hudson v. MoonUtah Supreme Court · 1913
- Nooner v. ShortSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.