Flitch v. Boyle

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wedell, J.:

This action was brought for the purpose of deter*835mining plaintiff’s interest in certain oil and gas leases and royalty-interests. Judgment went for plaintiff and against two defendants, E. E. Boyle and L. S. Boyle, and against the intervenor, the receiver of the Union Finance Corporation. The intervenor has appealed.

The original case was before us a year ago on the question of whether a demurrer of the defendant, L. S. Boyle, to the petition of the plaintiff had been properly sustained. (Flitch v. Boyle, 147 Kan. 600, 78 P. 2d 9.) The…