Brown v. Wilson
This text of 286 P. 247 (Brown v. Wilson) 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 opinion of the court was delivered by
The action was one to enjoin enforcement of a judgment. Plaintiff prevailed, and defendants appeal.
The court found the facts in detail. The findings disclosed judgment was taken under circumstances which amounted to fraud on the judgment debtor, plaintiff in this action. The evidence was conflicting. The findings were sustained by ample evidence.
Defendants say the court could not enjoin a valid judgment. The court could enjoin a judgment procured by fraud.
A temporary injunction was allowed at the commencement of the action, but no bond was given. Defendants say the court lost jurisdiction. The statute and cases they cite merely say the injunction was of no effect. The action for injunction was not abated, and it is not now material whether the temporary injunction ever became operative.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
286 P. 247, 130 Kan. 359, 1930 Kan. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-wilson-kan-1930.