McCracken v. Wright
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBurch, J.
I am *625unable to agree that syllabus 3 and the corresponding part of the opinion following Bramwell v. Trower, supra, and Linder v. Warnock, supra, are applicable to the present case. The defendants, in my opinion, did not plead or prove a substantial, meritorious claim to an equitable title. Obviously, the very purpose of summary proceedings in forcible entry and detainer cases is defeated if defendants can assert a claim to title which is unenforceable under the statute of frauds and have the allegation of such a claim result in prolonged delay and extended litigation, during which the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Baldwin v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Ducie v. FordSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Emmel v. HayesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Baldridge v. CentgrafSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- Eakin v. WycoffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.