Davis v. Finney
Supreme Court of Kansas
Fh'ror from Woodson District Court. On August 26,1884, D. W. Finney brought an action against James J. Davis, to recover $625.62, with interest from August 1, 1884, as a balance claimed to be due on a written contract dated February 9, 1884. Davis answered, admitting the execution of the contract, but alleged as a defense that the execution thereof had been procured through false and fraudulent representations on the part of Finney, and set up the facts and circumstances…
Read the full summary
Fh'ror from Woodson District Court. On August 26,1884, D. W. Finney brought an action against James J. Davis, to recover $625.62, with interest from August 1, 1884, as a balance claimed to be due on a written contract dated February 9, 1884. Davis answered, admitting the execution of the contract, but alleged as a defense that the execution thereof had been procured through false and fraudulent representations on the part of Finney, and set up the facts and circumstances constituting the alleged fraud. Finney replied, denying all the allegations of fraud. In October, 1884, the case being at…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
It is claimed that the district court erred in overruling the motion to set aside the report of the referee and grant a new trial, for the following reasons: (1) That if the Allen county district court for the November term, 1881, expired November 18, (and that, it is urged, was the plain intent and purpose of the stipulation,) then the filing of the report by the referee subsequently was a mere nullity, being unauthorized and therefore void; (2) That if the Allen county district court extended to and included January 30, 1885, any…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kelley & Lysle Milling Co. v. SchreiberSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- City of Newton v. ToevsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- McConkey v. PendletonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912