Miflin v. Stalker
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Bourbon Bounty. The facts of the case fully appear-in the opinion of the court. contended: 1. That the judgment is in form proper. 2. The sections of the civil code, title 11, chap. 3, fully authorize the j udgment and proceeding in this case. While the court below did not deny that the statute did in fact authorize it, yet it was contended that these sections were unconstitutional.
Read the full summary
Error from Bourbon Bounty. The facts of the case fully appear-in the opinion of the court. contended: 1. That the judgment is in form proper. 2. The sections of the civil code, title 11, chap. 3, fully authorize the j udgment and proceeding in this case. While the court below did not deny that the statute did in fact authorize it, yet it was contended that these sections were unconstitutional. Art. 3, sec. 1, Const., provides that the judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, justices of the peace, and such other courts, inferior to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Oov/rt,
Safford, J.
The plaintiff, here and below, brought Ms action in the district court, declaring upon the following writing, to wit: >
‘£Proceedings had in Fourth Judicial District Court, Bourbon county, Kansas, in vacation: P. A. Miflin against R. N. Foot — debt on note. Now, at this day, and in vacation of the district court, comes the said P. A. Miflin, by iiis attorney, O. P. Bullock, as well .as the said defendant, R. N. Foot, in his own proper person ; whereupon the said defendant, voluntarily, and of his own free will, confesses judgment to the said plaintiff, in the sum of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Zane v. ZaneSupreme Court of Kansas · 1869
- Dodge v. CoffinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875