Chaput v. Demars

244 P. 1042, 120 Kan. 612, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 442

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Marshall, J.:

In this action an opinion was filed February 6, 1926. (Chaput v. Demars, ante, p. 273.) The plaintiff has filed a motion for a rehearing in which lie urges that the sufficiency of the notice in respect to the description of real property was not determined by this court.

The notice was as follows:

“Notice to Trim Hedge.

“To Joseph Chaput:

“You are hereby notified to trim the hedge fence located on the land on west line of NE% section 15-7-2 to a height of five feet within thirty days, and if said hedge is not trimmed I will have the same cut and costs charged to you according to law and the provisions chapter 253, Laws of Kansas, 1919,. p. 348.

“Aug. 17-1923, (Signed) George Benoche, Road Overseer.”

The court takes judicial notice of the fact that all of Cloud county-lies west of the sixth principal meridian. The notice was sdfficient. to accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

The motion is denied.