Cunningham v. Hill

Supreme Court of Kansas

Cunningham v. Hill

102 P. 1102, 80 Kan. 706, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 147

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 3, 1909

DocketNo. 16,140

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 P. 1102 (Cunningham v. Hill) 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

Cunningham v. Hill, 102 P. 1102, 80 Kan. 706, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 147 (kan 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The contract upon which this action was brought provided for a penalty in case of breach and not for stipulated damages. The principles of law governing the case are fully stated and well illustrated in the following decisions of this court: St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Shoemaker, 27 Kan. 677; Heatwole v. Gorrell, 35 Kan. 692; Condon v. Kemper, 47 Kan. 126; Land Co. v. Barton, 51 Kan. 554; Davidson v. Hughes, 76 Kan. 247; Railroad Co. v. Gaba, 78 Kan. 432; Bank v. Burlington, 79 Kan. 797.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The contract upon which this action was brought provided for a penalty in case of breach and not for stipulated damages. The principles of law governing the case are fully stated and well illustrated in the following decisions of this court: St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Shoemaker, 27 Kan. 677; Heatwole v. Gorrell, 35 Kan. 692; Condon v. Kemper, 47 Kan. 126; Land Co. v. Barton, 51 Kan. 554; Davidson v. Hughes, 76 Kan. 247; Railroad Co. v. Gaba, 78 Kan. 432; Bank v. Burlington, 79 Kan. 797.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 P. 1102, 80 Kan. 706, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-hill-kan-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack