Dorman v. Crozier

14 Kan. 224
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 14 Kan. 224 (Dorman v. Crozier) 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
Dorman v. Crozier, 14 Kan. 224 (kan 1875).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

An affidavit made by an agent of another verifying a statement of a claim filed with the clerk of the district court under section 3 of the mechanic’s-lien law of 1871, (Laws of 1871, page 254,) for the purpose of procuring a mechanic’s lien on certain real estate, should be sworn to positively. (See Atchison v. Bartholow, 4 Kas., 124; Ex parte The Bank of Monroe, 7 Hill, 177.) An affidavit for such a purpose, made by such an agent, stating that “the facts as above set forth are true and correct, according to the best of his [the agent’s] knowledge and belief,” without showing that he had any knowledge upon the subject, is not sufficient.

Where an affidavit made in such case is defective, it can be amended only by attaching a sufficient affidavit to the statement within the time allowed by law for filing the statement with the clerk. Code, § 139.-

It is error to tax attorney-fees in a foreclosure suit unless the mortgagor has stipulated to them. (Coburn v. Weed, 12 Kas., 182; Foote v. Sprague, 13 Kas., 155.)

This case will be remanded to the court below with the order that the judgment of the court below be modified by striking out the amounts allowed as attorney-fees to A. Crozier [228]*228& Co., and to V. C. Jarboe. In other respects the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

J. Walters Construction Co. v. Greystone South Partnership, L.P.
817 P.2d 201 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1991)
DaMac Drilling, Inc. v. Shoemake
713 P.2d 480 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1986)
Lewis v. Wanamaker Baptist Church
692 P.2d 397 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1984)
Oscar George, Inc. v. Potts
115 A.2d 479 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1955)
Reeves v. Kansas Cooperative Wheat Marketing Ass'n
15 P.2d 446 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1932)
Robertson v. State
104 So. 561 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Heitz v. Sayers
113 A. 901 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1921)
Lyons v. Howard
117 P. 842 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1911)
Crane Co. v. Epworth Hotel Construction & Real Estate Co.
98 S.W. 795 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Chapman v. Brewer
62 N.W. 320 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
Globe Iron Roofing & Corrugating Co. v. Thacher
87 Ala. 458 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)
Delahay v. Goldie
17 Kan. 263 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Kan. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorman-v-crozier-kan-1875.