Lasley v. Bartlett

Supreme Court of Kansas

Lasley v. Bartlett

124 P. 175, 87 Kan. 390

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 8, 1912

DocketNo. 17,674

StatusPublished

This text of 124 P. 175 (Lasley v. Bartlett) 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

Lasley v. Bartlett, 124 P. 175, 87 Kan. 390 (kan 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Several conceivable plans involving consecutive and orderly numbering would make the lots contiguous. There is nothing on the face of the deed to show that they are not contiguous. Presumptions .are to be indulged in favor of the deed and not against [391]*391it. The deed being good, on its face was not vulnerable to evidence showing the lots were not in fact contiguous. In Worden v. Cole, 74 Kan. 226, 86 Pac. 464, the lots lay in different blocks, which implied separating streets.

The judgment is affirmed

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

Per Curiam:

Several conceivable plans involving consecutive and orderly numbering would make the lots contiguous. There is nothing on the face of the deed to show that they are not contiguous. Presumptions .are to be indulged in favor of the deed and not against [391]*391it. The deed being good, on its face was not vulnerable to evidence showing the lots were not in fact contiguous. In Worden v. Cole, 74 Kan. 226, 86 Pac. 464, the lots lay in different blocks, which implied separating streets.

The judgment is affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 P. 175, 87 Kan. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lasley-v-bartlett-kan-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack