Filson v. Heliker
This text of 80 P. 1133 (Filson v. Heliker) 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.
Opinion
There is nothing in the record to indicate what answers to his questions were anticipated by plaintiff in error, but, whether they would have been favorable or adverse to him, the evidence was irrelevant under the pleadings as they then stood. It could not become admissible without framing a new issue. If a new issue had been framed it must have included the fact that the mortgagee knew of the assumption of his mortgage by the grantee in the deed, and adopted the contract of assumption at a time sufficiently remote to allow the statute of limitations to run. Without an offer to show these things no request to amend could have been granted.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
80 P. 1133, 71 Kan. 847, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filson-v-heliker-kan-1905.