Mangum v. Stadel

Supreme Court of Kansas

Mangum v. Stadel

114 P. 865, 84 Kan. 668, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 393

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 8, 1911

DocketNo. 16,825

StatusPublished

This text of 114 P. 865 (Mangum v. Stadel) 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

Mangum v. Stadel, 114 P. 865, 84 Kan. 668, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 393 (kan 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an action to recover a landlord’s lien. The facts are fully stated in a former opinion. (Mangum v. Stadel, 76 Kan. 764.) There is no merit in the claims of error in sustaining objections to testimony. The same facts were fully brought out in the testimony of other witnesses, and, besides, it was not contended that the appellant had actual notice of the lien or that he acted fraudulently.

The case appears to have been tried the second time in strict accordance with the rules of law declared in the former opinion. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an action to recover a landlord’s lien. The facts are fully stated in a former opinion. (Mangum v. Stadel, 76 Kan. 764.) There is no merit in the claims of error in sustaining objections to testimony. The same facts were fully brought out in the testimony of other witnesses, and, besides, it was not contended that the appellant had actual notice of the lien or that he acted fraudulently.

The case appears to have been tried the second time in strict accordance with the rules of law declared in the former opinion. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 P. 865, 84 Kan. 668, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangum-v-stadel-kan-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack