Dollman v. Harris
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from, Shawnee County. The opinion of the court in this case contains a sufficient statement of the facts thereof. 1. ■ The husband was a proper party, having an interest in the subject of the suit.- Civ. Code, ’59, § 42; Comp. L., 130,181, §§ 47, 48. 2. • The mortgage was void for every purpose, absolutely; a sale under a decree foreclosing tire same would be set aside.
Read the full summary
Error from, Shawnee County. The opinion of the court in this case contains a sufficient statement of the facts thereof. 1. ■ The husband was a proper party, having an interest in the subject of the suit.- Civ. Code, ’59, § 42; Comp. L., 130,181, §§ 47, 48. 2. • The mortgage was void for every purpose, absolutely; a sale under a decree foreclosing tire same would be set aside. Cusic v. Douglas, 3 Kas., 123; Iioot v. McGrow, id., 216. 3. Such a mortgage is not even a lien on the premises and conveys no interest to the purchaser, [Morris v. Ward, Ante, 239,] and a judgment thereon would be no…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Valentine, J.
This is an action upon a promissory note and mortgage.
The plaintiff, Samuel Dollman, commenced the action against Dorris Harris, alone. She answered his petition, and in the first count thereof set forth substantially the following facts:
She and the other defendant, Alonzo S. Harris, are husband and wife. They, together with their family, consisting of five children, have resided on the mortgaged property, and held it as a homestead, ever since before the said mortgage was executed. The mortgaged property contains less than one acre of land, and is situated in the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Ayres v. ProbascoSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- Greeno v. BarnardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Howell, Jewett & Co. v. McCrieSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
- Hawkins v. CorbitSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Thimes v. StumpffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.