Leis v. Sinclair
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Douglas district court; C. A. Smart, judge. STATEMENT. In a foreclosure proceeding the following findings of fact and conclusions of law were made : FINDINGS OF FACT.
Read the full summary
Error from Douglas district court; C. A. Smart, judge. STATEMENT. In a foreclosure proceeding the following findings of fact and conclusions of law were made : FINDINGS OF FACT. “1. On the 1st day of February, 1889, the plaintiff was the owner of the north half of lot 42 and the south half of lot 91, on Massachusetts street, in the city of Lawrence, Douglas county, Kansas, and also the owner of lot 41, on New Hampshire street, in said city; that on that day he, together with the defendant Lillian R. Leis, borrowed from H. O. Bowman $4000, and executed their promissory note therefor, a copy…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Johnston, G. J.:
The first contention is that there was error in the holding that the plaintiffs were under legal obligation to secure an extension of the Bowman note and mortgage in behalf of John J. Kunkel. In *754the covenant agreement incorporated in the deed made by- the Leises to Kunkel, they recited an assurance that they were the owners of the property conveyed, and were seized of a good and indefeasible title, free and clear from all encumbrances, except the Bowman mortgage. As to that, it was stipulated: “Which mortgage they hei'eby guarantee may…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Singer Company v. Makad, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1973
- Pond Creek Mill & Elevator Co. v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1920
- Smerchek v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1980
- Eakin v. WycoffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
- Shunga Plaza, Inc. v. American Employers' InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.