Hussey v. Bartholomew

Supreme Court of Kansas

Hussey v. Bartholomew

132 P. 207, 89 Kan. 696, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 102

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 10, 1913

DocketNo. 18,131

StatusPublished

This text of 132 P. 207 (Hussey v. Bartholomew) 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

Hussey v. Bartholomew, 132 P. 207, 89 Kan. 696, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 102 (kan 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this controversy, which arose out of a real-estate transaction, the appellee claimed that appellants, through misrepresentation and fraud, obtained $600 from him for which he was to be given a title to property in the city of Le Roy, but that instead he was offered land owned by Bartholomew which Bartholomew had transferred to Strong subject to a mortgage executed by Strong for a sum much in excess of the value of the land. The testimony of appellee is sufficient to sustain his theory and claim, while that of appellants was that appellee had purchased the Bartholomew land and that there was no misrepresentation of the facts to him nor a misunderstanding of them by him. The testimony was confined largely to that given by the three parties involved in the transaction. The jury chose to believe the testimony of appellee as against that given by appellants, and the jury being the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the verdict having been approved by the trial court, the judgment must be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

In this controversy, which arose out of a real-estate transaction, the appellee claimed that appellants, through misrepresentation and fraud, obtained $600 from him for which he was to be given a title to property in the city of Le Roy, but that instead he was offered land owned by Bartholomew which Bartholomew had transferred to Strong subject to a mortgage executed by Strong for a sum much in excess of the value of the land. The testimony of appellee is sufficient to sustain his theory and claim, while that of appellants was that appellee had purchased the Bartholomew land and that there was no misrepresentation of the facts to him nor a misunderstanding of them by him. The testimony was confined largely to that given by the three parties involved in the transaction. The jury chose to believe the testimony of appellee as against that given by appellants, and the jury being the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the verdict having been approved by the trial court, the judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 P. 207, 89 Kan. 696, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hussey-v-bartholomew-kan-1913.