Young v. Whittenhall
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Nemaha District Court. ■ Judgment was given in favor of tbe defendant, at the April Term 1874 of the district court, upon his demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition. The plaintiff brings the case here on error. All the necessary facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
*580 1. statute of nmtion for relief.
*579The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff below, set forth in his petition below, in two separate *580counts, two supposed causes of action. The defendant demurred to said petition, and to each count thereof, on the ground that neither of them stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court below sustained the demurrer. Said supposed causes of action are founded upon certain alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the defendant for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Carpentier v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Sublette v. TinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Zane v. ZaneSupreme Court of Kansas · 1869
3Cited by25 opinions
- Farmers Feed Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Humphrey v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Diffie H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Carpenter H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. McInnisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
- Schulte v. Westborough, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1947
- Martin v. GassertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.