Harder v. Webb

Supreme Court of Kansas

Harder v. Webb

99 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 858

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedFebruary 6, 1909

DocketNo. 15,562

StatusPublished

This text of 99 P. 1134 (Harder v. Webb) 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

Harder v. Webb, 99 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 858 (kan 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

■Per Curiam:

The witness claimed to be incompetent was an active agent in the transaction and her testimony was admissible. The answer admitted to be due, and the court awarded to the plaintiff, all the money he claimed. Why the judgment should be reversed and the case sent back to have a jury assess the amount is incomprehensible. The answer made an equity case for specific performance. The court had the right to take the advice of a jury if it so desired, and to make additional findings. Not a single error assigned to instructions could possibly affect the few simple findings made by the jury. On all the findings the court rendered a just and equitable judgment, which is affirmed.

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

■Per Curiam:

The witness claimed to be incompetent was an active agent in the transaction and her testimony was admissible. The answer admitted to be due, and the court awarded to the plaintiff, all the money he claimed. Why the judgment should be reversed and the case sent back to have a jury assess the amount is incomprehensible. The answer made an equity case for specific performance. The court had the right to take the advice of a jury if it so desired, and to make additional findings. Not a single error assigned to instructions could possibly affect the few simple findings made by the jury. On all the findings the court rendered a just and equitable judgment, which is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harder-v-webb-kan-1909.