Williams v. Hersey
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Mitohell District Court. Action by Hersey against Williams and wife, and James Finnegan, to have a certain deed absolute in form adjudged to be a mortgage in fact, and to compel Williams and wife to reconvey certain property to plaintiff, and to recover from Williams and Finnegan an alleged balance due plaintiff on account.
Read the full summary
Error from Mitohell District Court. Action by Hersey against Williams and wife, and James Finnegan, to have a certain deed absolute in form adjudged to be a mortgage in fact, and to compel Williams and wife to reconvey certain property to plaintiff, and to recover from Williams and Finnegan an alleged balance due plaintiff on account. Trial at the December Term 1874. The testimony and special findings show, that Hersey on the 3d of March 1873 was indebted to W. & F. in the sum of $580; that on that day Hersey and wife conveyed to Williams by said deed a large number of lots in the town of…
1Opinion of the Court
*20The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
1. Biu of exceptions. The defendant in error raises the question, that a certain portion of the transcript filed in this case, and claimed to be a bill of exceptions, is not a bill of exceptions, and is not part of the record of the case> qq,e p]ajn£jfps error make no reply thereto. Said supposed bill of exceptions commences with the words, “Be it remembered,” etc., and then includes various proceedings of the court below, and rulings to which the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, excepted, and then concludes with the following…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Govenius Bros. v. ReagorSupreme Court of Kansas · 1930
- State v. FrySupreme Court of Kansas · 1888