Legal Opinion

Croco v. Hille

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 11, 1903No. 12,777PublishedCited by 14 opinions

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

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J. :

On the 9th day of May, 1901, plaintiff in error was allowed by the court until June 20 to make and serve a case for this court. It was served on June 20, and defendant in error has moved to dismiss the proceedings in error for the reason that the *513time allowed by the court had expired when service of the case was had.

The point raised involves the question whether the word “until,” used in the order of the court, means “to.” or “up to” June 20, so as to exclude that date, or whether service on the day named was in time. Webster, in defining…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bemis v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  2. Kendall v. KingsleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  3. The People v. . WalkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
  4. Webster v. FrenchIllinois Supreme Court · 1850
  5. Corbin v. KetchamIndiana Supreme Court · 1882

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Birdzell v. JorgensonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
  2. State ex rel. Rowe v. KehoeMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Jeremy Fuel & Grain Co. v. Denver & R. G. R.Utah Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Maynes v. GraySupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
  5. Barnes v. GideonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1978

9 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