Fountain v. Kenney
72 P. 562, 67 Kan. 821, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 340
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fountain v. Kenney. Read the opinion of the Court — 71 Kan. 642 →
Opinion
The motion for a further order in this cause upon the cross-petition in error of C. E. Sprague must be allowed. It was inadvertently overlooked when the main controversy was decided. There appears to be sufficient testimony to sustain the findings and judgment in favor of J. C. Foulks against C. E. Sprague, and therefore that part of the judgment will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fountain v. Kenney, 72 P. 562, 67 Kan. 821, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 340 (kan 1903).
72 P. 562 (Fountain v. Kenney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.