Casey v. Diehl

Supreme Court of Kansas

Casey v. Diehl

113 P. 1046, 84 Kan. 443, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 346

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 11, 1911

DocketNo. 16,904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 P. 1046 (Casey v. Diehl) 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

Casey v. Diehl, 113 P. 1046, 84 Kan. 443, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 346 (kan 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

No cause of action for the loss of his bargain accrued to the plaintiff, because the contract was not binding under the statute of frauds. (Leis v. Potter, 68 Kan. 117, 121.)

The other item of damage claimed is not recoverable -on the principle of estoppel, because the claim arises upon voluntary conduct of the plaintiff, not induced by the defendant, and entirely outside the purview of the contract.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

No cause of action for the loss of his bargain accrued to the plaintiff, because the contract was not binding under the statute of frauds. (Leis v. Potter, 68 Kan. 117, 121.)

The other item of damage claimed is not recoverable -on the principle of estoppel, because the claim arises upon voluntary conduct of the plaintiff, not induced by the defendant, and entirely outside the purview of the contract.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 P. 1046, 84 Kan. 443, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-diehl-kan-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack