Flint v. Dulany & McVeigh
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Anderson District Court. Action by Flint against Dulany and twenty-two others, to quiet his title to certain lands in Anderson county. On September 13, 1881, judgment by default was rendered for plaintiff. Thereafter the judgment against the defendant Wickel was opened, and he was let in to defend. On September 4, 1884, he filed his answer or cross-petition, to which the plaintiff demurred.
Read the full summary
Error from Anderson District Court. Action by Flint against Dulany and twenty-two others, to quiet his title to certain lands in Anderson county. On September 13, 1881, judgment by default was rendered for plaintiff. Thereafter the judgment against the defendant Wickel was opened, and he was let in to defend. On September 4, 1884, he filed his answer or cross-petition, to which the plaintiff demurred. On December 11, 1885, the court overruled this demurrer, and found for the defendant. New trial denied. The court adjudged that “the defendant William Wickel recover of Charles L. Flint,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Johnston, J.:
On the 21st day of February, 1881, Charles L. Flint brought an action, in the district court of Anderson county, against Dulany & McVeigh, William Wickel, and a number of other persons; and in his petition he alleged that he was the owner of several tracts of real estate in Anderson county; and that he held them by virtue of certain tax deeds which had been executed by the county clerk of that county, which deeds had been duly recorded. He averred that the defendants claimed some title or interest in the lands, and that the action was…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Wall v. MagnesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
- Pennie v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Bond v. United RailroadsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Ordway v. CowlesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- Nicholson v. HaleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.