Nason v. Best

Supreme Court of Kansas

Nason v. Best

17 Kan. 408

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 15, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 17 Kan. 408 (Nason v. Best) 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

Nason v. Best, 17 Kan. 408 (kan 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

This was an action of forcible entry and detainer. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, where judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The case was then taken to the district court on petition in [409]*409error, where the judgment of the justice was reversed, the case again tried, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff now brings the case to this court on petition in error.

We cannot tell from the record brought to this court whether the district court committed any material error or not. Certainly no material error is clearly and affirmatively shown; and therefore the judgment of the court must be affirmed. We would say, however, that it is necessary that a party desiring to commence an action of forcible entry and detainer should, at least three days' before commencing his action, notify the adverse party by a notice in writing to leave the premises in dispute; (Gen. Stat. 810, §161;) and if he does not give such notice he cannot maintain the action. Kennedy v. Hitchcock, 4 Porter, (Ala.) 230; Pricket v. Ritter, 16 Ill. 96; Dutton v. Colby, 35 Me. 505; Mead v. Kirkpatrick, 8 N. J. Law, 308; Forbes v. Glashan, 13 Johns. 158. And this notice should show clearly who claims to. be entitled to the possession of the premises, and who makes the demand therefor; and then no one but the person who thus claims the premises and makes the demand can maintain the action under such notice. Therefore, a notice, not showing in the body of the same who claims the premises, but being “served by Noah Nason, in the name of Edward Nason as the agent of Noah Nason,” is not a sufficient notice for Edward Nason to found an action of forcible entry and detainer upon. But even if such notice were sufficient, the judgment of the court below in this case would probably still have to be sustained upon other grounds, and for other reasons.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Bbeweb, J., concurring. Hobton, C. J., not sitting in the case.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

This was an action of forcible entry and detainer. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, where judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The case was then taken to the district court on petition in [409]*409error, where the judgment of the justice was reversed, the case again tried, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff now brings the case to this court on petition in error.

We cannot tell from the record brought to this court whether the district court committed any material error or not. Certainly no material error is clearly and affirmatively shown; and therefore the judgment of the court must be affirmed. We would say, however, that it is necessary that a party desiring to commence an action of forcible entry and detainer should, at least three days' before commencing his action, notify the adverse party by a notice in writing to leave the premises in dispute; (Gen. Stat. 810, §161;) and if he does not give such notice he cannot maintain the action. Kennedy v. Hitchcock, 4 Porter, (Ala.) 230; Pricket v. Ritter, 16 Ill. 96; Dutton v. Colby, 35 Me. 505; Mead v. Kirkpatrick, 8 N. J. Law, 308; Forbes v. Glashan, 13 Johns. 158. And this notice should show clearly who claims to. be entitled to the possession of the premises, and who makes the demand therefor; and then no one but the person who thus claims the premises and makes the demand can maintain the action under such notice. Therefore, a notice, not showing in the body of the same who claims the premises, but being “served by Noah Nason, in the name of Edward Nason as the agent of Noah Nason,” is not a sufficient notice for Edward Nason to found an action of forcible entry and detainer upon. But even if such notice were sufficient, the judgment of the court below in this case would probably still have to be sustained upon other grounds, and for other reasons.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Bbeweb, J., concurring. Hobton, C. J., not sitting in the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Kan. 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nason-v-best-kan-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack