Lowe v. Curry

Supreme Court of Kansas

Lowe v. Curry

87 P. 1149, 74 Kan. 899, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 192

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 8, 1906

DocketNo. 14,786

StatusPublished

This text of 87 P. 1149 (Lowe v. Curry) 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

Lowe v. Curry, 87 P. 1149, 74 Kan. 899, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 192 (kan 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This was an action to recover a balance alleged to be due for labor and material, in connection with a lease of land, which resulted in a verdict that nothing was due. The terms of the written contract between the parties appear to support the result reached, but, assuming that the contract was ambiguous and incomplete and that oral testimony was admissible to prove what the actual agreement was, that which was [900]*900received by the trial court tends to show that nothing was due from defendants for the hauling of bundles to the thrashing-, machine or for the other items included in the account. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

The rulings on instructions of which complaint is made have, each been examined, but no prejudicial error is found. A detailed discussion of them is not warranted.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This was an action to recover a balance alleged to be due for labor and material, in connection with a lease of land, which resulted in a verdict that nothing was due. The terms of the written contract between the parties appear to support the result reached, but, assuming that the contract was ambiguous and incomplete and that oral testimony was admissible to prove what the actual agreement was, that which was [900]*900received by the trial court tends to show that nothing was due from defendants for the hauling of bundles to the thrashing-, machine or for the other items included in the account. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

The rulings on instructions of which complaint is made have, each been examined, but no prejudicial error is found. A detailed discussion of them is not warranted.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 P. 1149, 74 Kan. 899, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-v-curry-kan-1906.