Benton v. Beakey
This text of 81 P. 196 (Benton v. Beakey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The petition states a cause of action. The fact that Benton continued to hold and use the premises after the expiration of his lease, without the consent of the owner, does not prevent a recovery for use and occupation. (Gen. Stat. 1901, sec. 3864; Martin v. Allen, 67 Kan. 768, 74 Pac. 249.)
No prejudicial error was committed in admitting a copy of [873]*873the master’s deed. The defendant in error did not have the original in her possession nor under her control, and, besides, there were introduced in evidence the proceedings of another case, between the same parties, where the existence of the deed was alleged by Benton, and otherwise shown.
We find nothing substantial in the objections to the rulings on instructions, and the testimony appears to be sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
81 P. 196, 71 Kan. 872, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-v-beakey-kan-1905.