Kemper v. Lord

49 P. 638, 6 Kan. App. 64, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 263
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedJuly 16, 1897
DocketNo. 238
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 P. 638 (Kemper v. Lord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kemper v. Lord, 49 P. 638, 6 Kan. App. 64, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 263 (kanctapp 1897).

Opinion

McElroy, J.

The first thing demanding consideration is a motion to dismiss the petition in error for the reason that it does not affirmatively appear that more than one hundred dollars is involved. This position is not tenable. The petition is a part of the case-made and shows that more than one hundred dollars is involved.

The only other question presented is, Does the plaintiff’s petition state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? It does. It 'contains the name of the court, the county in which the action is brought, the names of the parties, plaintiff and defendant, a [66]*66statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language and without repetition, and contains a demand of the relief to which the plaintiff supposes himself entitled — the recovery of money,— and the amount is stated. The demurrer should have been overruled. There is much in the petition which might be stricken out, but the petition states a cause of action.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case will be remanded with instructions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer and proceed in accordance herewith.

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

Related

St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Brown
61 P. 457 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 P. 638, 6 Kan. App. 64, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kemper-v-lord-kanctapp-1897.