Legal Opinion

Diehl v. Barker

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 8, 1933No. 30,820PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an. action for a sum claimed to be due for merchandise sold. The'jury answered special questions and returned a verdict for defendant. Plaintiffs have appealed.

*256The facts disclosed by the record are not seriously in dispute and may be stated as follows: The defendant, O. P. Barker, is a retail merchant at Wichita doing business under the name of the Barker Hardware and Furniture Company. The New Home Sewing Machine Company, of Rockford, 111., and the Free Sewing Machine Company are subsidiaries of the Consolidated Industries, Inc. The…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Skinner v. SkinnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
  2. Hudson v. RileySupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
  3. Shook v. Puritan Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1907
  4. Hart v. HaynesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
  5. White Sewing Machine Co. v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1926

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Eldredge v. SargentSupreme Court of Kansas · 1939
  2. Floor v. MitchellUtah Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Siedhoff v. CampbellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1935
  4. Bowers v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API