McCord v. McConnell

Supreme Court of Kansas

McCord v. McConnell

149 P. 422, 95 Kan. 786, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 292

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 12, 1915

DocketNo. 19,544

StatusPublished

This text of 149 P. 422 (McCord v. McConnell) 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

McCord v. McConnell, 149 P. 422, 95 Kan. 786, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 292 (kan 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

S. J. McCord, after a partial examination of a- farm owned by Albert McConnell, entered into a contract for its purchase, paying $2000 of the agreed price. Later he brought an action to set aside the contract and recover the amount paid, on the ground that he had been misled by false representations regarding the land.' He was denied relief, and appeals.

The plaintiff contends that the judgment is erroneous because it is based on the theory that the misrepresentations on which he relies were not actionable, in view of his opportunity to examine the land. He argues that the examination was not of such a character as to prevent his reliance upon the statements made to him by the owner of the land. We can not regard this question as determinative of the matter because, for anything that the record shows, the court may have found that the defendant made no false representations whatever. No special findings were made, and in sup[787]*787port of the judgment rendered it must be presumed that the court found against the plaintiff on the facts. (Mason v. Harlow, 92 Kan. 1042, 142 Pac. 243.)

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

S. J. McCord, after a partial examination of a- farm owned by Albert McConnell, entered into a contract for its purchase, paying $2000 of the agreed price. Later he brought an action to set aside the contract and recover the amount paid, on the ground that he had been misled by false representations regarding the land.' He was denied relief, and appeals.

The plaintiff contends that the judgment is erroneous because it is based on the theory that the misrepresentations on which he relies were not actionable, in view of his opportunity to examine the land. He argues that the examination was not of such a character as to prevent his reliance upon the statements made to him by the owner of the land. We can not regard this question as determinative of the matter because, for anything that the record shows, the court may have found that the defendant made no false representations whatever. No special findings were made, and in sup[787]*787port of the judgment rendered it must be presumed that the court found against the plaintiff on the facts. (Mason v. Harlow, 92 Kan. 1042, 142 Pac. 243.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 P. 422, 95 Kan. 786, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccord-v-mcconnell-kan-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack