Norris v. Evans

39 Kan. 668
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 15, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 39 Kan. 668 (Norris v. Evans) 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
Norris v. Evans, 39 Kan. 668 (kan 1888).

Opinion

Opinion by

Holt, C.:

This is an action to enforce the specific performance of a contract which was entered into on the 7th day of October, 1878, by Eliza C. Evans, then Eliza C. Giffin, and her husband O. P. Giffin, with M. L. Norris for the sale of the real property adjoining the city of Topeka. Norris was to pay $500 for it, as follows: $25 to be paid in a note executed at the time the contract was made; $200 in work and labor to be done during the year next following the date of said contract; and $275 to be paid in cash within said year, with interest at ten per cent, per annum. This trial was had upon the 2d day of September, 1885, in the superior court of Shawnee county, and a demurrer was sustained to the evidence offered by the plaintiff.

It appears from the testimony that after this contract was entered into, the plaintiff performed $51 of work and then abandoned it; and afterward, after a lapse of four years, made a tender of what he supposed to be a sufficient amount due upon the contract. The land in the meantime had risen in value from $500 to $5,000. The plaintiff made no offer after the month of November, 1878, to comply with the terms of the contract, nor in any way perform his part of the same, until March, 1883, when he made the tender, which we are [669]*669satisfied was sufficient in amount. We are precluded, however, from examining this action upon its merits. There was no motion made for a new trial, which is indispensable under our practice, when a demurrer to the evidence has been sustained. (Gruble v. Ryus, 23 Kas. 195.)

We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Mitchener v. City Com'rs, City of Okmulgee
1924 OK 645 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Federal Refining Co. v. Fortuna Oil Co.
1919 OK 365 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co.
1915 OK 465 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Shawnee Mut. Fire Ins. v. School Board of School Dist. No. 31
1914 OK 447 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Insurance Co. of North America v. Little
1912 OK 369 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Ardmore Oil & Milling Co. v. Doggett Grain Co.
1912 OK 159 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Planters Mutual Insurance Association v. Rose
1910 OK 356 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Joiner v. Goldsmith
1910 OK 77 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Wagner v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
85 P. 299 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
Ryland v. Coyle
1898 OK 79 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Kan. 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-evans-kan-1888.