Bloom v. Foster

Supreme Court of Kansas

Bloom v. Foster

132 P. 208, 89 Kan. 568

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 10, 1913

DocketNo. 18,145

StatusPublished

This text of 132 P. 208 (Bloom v. Foster) 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.

Bluebook

Bloom v. Foster, 132 P. 208, 89 Kan. 568 (kan 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:.

As we construe the contract made by the parties, the appellee guaranteed that a certain well should have a certain capacity, in consideration of which the price per foot for drilling that well was increased from seventy cents to one dollar. If the capacity of the well to produce gas proved to be less than the stipulated amount, he was not to receive any compensation. There is no claim that he failed to satisfy the terms of his guarantee. The court found generally for the appellee, and we think the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment except as to the allowance of $50 for cleaning' out well number ten. There was no evidence of any agreement to pay for cleaning out new wells; nor was there evidence of a custom by which the owner paid for that work.

The judgment is therefore ordered modified in accordance with these views.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:.

As we construe the contract made by the parties, the appellee guaranteed that a certain well should have a certain capacity, in consideration of which the price per foot for drilling that well was increased from seventy cents to one dollar. If the capacity of the well to produce gas proved to be less than the stipulated amount, he was not to receive any compensation. There is no claim that he failed to satisfy the terms of his guarantee. The court found generally for the appellee, and we think the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment except as to the allowance of $50 for cleaning' out well number ten. There was no evidence of any agreement to pay for cleaning out new wells; nor was there evidence of a custom by which the owner paid for that work.

The judgment is therefore ordered modified in accordance with these views.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 P. 208, 89 Kan. 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-foster-kan-1913.