National Mutual Insurance v. Farley

Supreme Court of Kansas

National Mutual Insurance v. Farley

80 P. 1134, 71 Kan. 849, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 251

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 8, 1905

DocketNo. 14,084

StatusPublished

This text of 80 P. 1134 (National Mutual Insurance v. Farley) 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

National Mutual Insurance v. Farley, 80 P. 1134, 71 Kan. 849, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 251 (kan 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff in error seems to complain chiefly of alleged misrepresentations relating to the value of, and to the title to, the property insured. The rules of law applicable to the case are plain and substantially undisputed, but the evidence relating to false values is conflicting, and that relating to the matter of title is avoided by proof of waiver. The jury did not take the view of the evidence held by plaintiff iñ error, and the verdict has been approved by the trial court. No reasons are offered to support the claims of error relating to the giving and refusing of instructions. The court is merely referred to a list' of pages of the record for testimony said to have been improperly admitted. The brief for plaintiff in error violates almost all the requirements of rule 10 of this court relating to its preparation.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff in error seems to complain chiefly of alleged misrepresentations relating to the value of, and to the title to, the property insured. The rules of law applicable to the case are plain and substantially undisputed, but the evidence relating to false values is conflicting, and that relating to the matter of title is avoided by proof of waiver. The jury did not take the view of the evidence held by plaintiff iñ error, and the verdict has been approved by the trial court. No reasons are offered to support the claims of error relating to the giving and refusing of instructions. The court is merely referred to a list' of pages of the record for testimony said to have been improperly admitted. The brief for plaintiff in error violates almost all the requirements of rule 10 of this court relating to its preparation.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 P. 1134, 71 Kan. 849, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-mutual-insurance-v-farley-kan-1905.