Daugherty v. Hedrick

77 P. 586, 69 Kan. 872, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 379
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 7, 1904
DocketNo. 13,766
StatusPublished

This text of 77 P. 586 (Daugherty v. Hedrick) 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
Daugherty v. Hedrick, 77 P. 586, 69 Kan. 872, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 379 (kan 1904).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This was an action in ejectment, the plaintiffs basing their claim upon an old Indian title. It seems probable that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed upon the theory that they are precluded from recovery by reason of laches, under the authority of Dunbar v. Green, 66 Kan. 557, 72 Pac. 243. It appears, however, that the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered September 24, 1902, when an order was made giv[873]*873ing plaintiff ninety days in which to serve a case, allowing ten days to suggest amendments, and requiring five days’ notice of settlement to be given, but otherwise making no provision for the time of settlement. The term of office of the trial judge expired January 12, 1903, and although he was his own successor, within the rule stated in Mowery v. Bank, 67 Kan. 128, 72 Pac. 539, he had no jurisdiction to settle and sign the case later than January 12,1903.

The proceeding in error is dismissed.

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

Related

Dunbar v. Green
72 P. 243 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1903)
Mowery v. Wilson State Bank
72 P. 539 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 P. 586, 69 Kan. 872, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daugherty-v-hedrick-kan-1904.