Legal Opinion

Shinkle v. Meek

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided May 7, 1904No. 13,644PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error from Hamilton district court; William Easton Hutchison, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

*369The opinion of the court was delivered by

Cunningham, J. :

The meritorious question here involved is whether, in the final notice of redemption, the inclusion of a printer’s fee of twenty-five cents and a county treasurer’s fee of five cents in the amount necessary to redeem lands sold for taxes is sufficient to avoid a deed issued in pursuance of such sale, if attacked before the running of the statute of limitations in its favor.

The statute relating to this final notice (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 7671) provides that it shall contain “ a list of all unredeemed lands and town lots, describing each…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Douglass v. NuzumSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
  2. Watkins v. IngeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
  3. Babbitt v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
  4. Casner v. GahlmanCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1897

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Teal Lake Iron Mining Co. v. OldsMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Utah Copper Co. v. Stephen Hayes Estate, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Salter v. CorbettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  4. Clark v. TandySupreme Court of Kansas · 1917
  5. Harp v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911

3 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