Krause v. Nickey

Supreme Court of Kansas

Krause v. Nickey

112 P. 167, 83 Kan. 812, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 449

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 10, 1910

DocketNo. 16,752

StatusPublished

This text of 112 P. 167 (Krause v. Nickey) 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

Krause v. Nickey, 112 P. 167, 83 Kan. 812, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 449 (kan 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

As all the assignments of error are argued together, and, especially since none of them possesses merit, they will not be separately mentioned. The appellant was not. prejudiced by the slight variance in the proof and the allegations in the bill of particulars upon which the case was tried on appeal from the justice court.

A very substantial foundation was laid for the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents of the written contract. The testimony was undisputed that the appellee brought about the sale of the appellant’s farm, and that his compensation was fixed by the written agreement. All the questions Were fairly submitted to the jury, and no substantial reason is suggested why the judgment should be disturbed. It is therefore affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

As all the assignments of error are argued together, and, especially since none of them possesses merit, they will not be separately mentioned. The appellant was not. prejudiced by the slight variance in the proof and the allegations in the bill of particulars upon which the case was tried on appeal from the justice court.

A very substantial foundation was laid for the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents of the written contract. The testimony was undisputed that the appellee brought about the sale of the appellant’s farm, and that his compensation was fixed by the written agreement. All the questions Were fairly submitted to the jury, and no substantial reason is suggested why the judgment should be disturbed. It is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 P. 167, 83 Kan. 812, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krause-v-nickey-kan-1910.