Rugh v. Gleissner

Supreme Court of Kansas

Rugh v. Gleissner

106 P. 1009, 81 Kan. 906, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 459

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedFebruary 12, 1910

DocketNo. 16,314

StatusPublished

This text of 106 P. 1009 (Rugh v. Gleissner) 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

Rugh v. Gleissner, 106 P. 1009, 81 Kan. 906, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 459 (kan 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Although the evidence was slight, there was some which tended to support the averments of the petition in avoidance of the statute of limitations. It does not appear from the evidence that an examination of the public recoups would have brought constructive notice to the appellants of the alleged fraud. Therefore the demurrer should have been overruled. The appellants should have been permitted to prove that E. S. Hamaker’s wife was his agent to make inquiries of the appellee with reference to the property belonging to the estate, and that, upon her return home, she communicated to him the result of her inquiries. The objection to the introduction of evidence on behalf of E. S. Hamaker should have been overruled.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer and proceed in accordance herewith.

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

Per Curiam:

Although the evidence was slight, there was some which tended to support the averments of the petition in avoidance of the statute of limitations. It does not appear from the evidence that an examination of the public recoups would have brought constructive notice to the appellants of the alleged fraud. Therefore the demurrer should have been overruled. The appellants should have been permitted to prove that E. S. Hamaker’s wife was his agent to make inquiries of the appellee with reference to the property belonging to the estate, and that, upon her return home, she communicated to him the result of her inquiries. The objection to the introduction of evidence on behalf of E. S. Hamaker should have been overruled.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer and proceed in accordance herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 P. 1009, 81 Kan. 906, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rugh-v-gleissner-kan-1910.