Legal Opinion

Walnut Township v. Heth

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided November 18, 1899No. 171PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error from Phillips district court; A. C. T. Geiger, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

*499The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mahan, P. J.:

This was an action by Heth against the township to recover on four several township warrants, issued to the assignors of the plaintiff for labor performed on the highway's and for materials furnished in the construction of bridges. To the plaintiff’s bill of particulars before the justice of the peace the defendant demurred, upon the ground that it stated no cause of action because it failed to allege a demand. The warrants are each stamped "Presented, and not paid for want of funds,” over the signature of the township treasurer, as…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Leavenworth v. RankinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1864
  2. City of Ellsworth v. RossiterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
  3. Ryan v. City of ColdwaterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
  4. State v. Commissioners of Marion Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1879

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Sugar Loaf TownshipSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902

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

Powered by the Exa API