Legal Opinion

Mydland v. Mydland

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 12, 1941No. 35,053PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*498The opinion of the court was delivered by

HoCH, J.:

This is an action for the partition of real estate. A demurrer was sustained to the original answer of one of the defendants and no appeal was taken. Thereafter, such defendant filed an amended answer, out of time and without leave of court and after the term of court had passed. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the amended answer from the files. From an order sustaining the motion defendant appeals.

The allegations of the pleadings need not be recited in detail. Statement of a few essential facts will suffice to indicate the questions here…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rossiter v. MerrimanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  2. First National Bank v. SchrubenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
  3. Kaw Valley State Bank v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934
  4. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance v. NevittSupreme Court of Kansas · 1938
  5. Lins v. EadsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1937

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bourke v. BourkeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1945
  2. Kearny County Bank v. NunnSupreme Court of Kansas · 1943
  3. Fidelity Hail Insurance v. AndersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1952
  4. Schauf v. Peter Kiewit & Sons Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1960
  5. Boyles v. EmerySupreme Court of Kansas · 1944

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

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

Powered by the Exa API