Seglem v. Yeager

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Seglem v. Yeager

56 P. 508, 8 Kan. App. 655, 1899 Kan. App. LEXIS 43

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedMarch 20, 1899

DocketNo. 663

StatusPublished

This text of 56 P. 508 (Seglem v. Yeager) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seglem v. Yeager, 56 P. 508, 8 Kan. App. 655, 1899 Kan. App. LEXIS 43 (kanctapp 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dennison, P. J.:

This action was commenced in the district court of Butler county by the plaintiff in error to recover the sum of $387 from the defendants in error. The second amended petition alleged that [656]*656the defendants were the directors of the Bank of Augusta, and that the plaintiff had deposited therein the amount claimed when the bank was insolvent and known to be insolvent by the defendants at the time it received his deposit, but that the fact of the bank’s insolvency was not known to him at the time of making said deposit. The defendants demurred to the second amended petition, which demurrer was by the court sustained.

The question involved in this case is the statute of limitations. Since this case was tried in the district court the question has been decided by our supreme court in Frame v. Ashley, 59 Kan. 477, 53 Pac. 474 adversely to the contention of the defendants in error. They have filed an exhaustive brief on the construction of chapter 47, Laws of 1897 (Gen. Stat. 1897, ch. 18), claiming that the decision of the supreme court in Frame v. Ashley, supra, is erroneous. It is our duty to follow that decision.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to overrule the demurrer of the defendants to the second amended petition of the plaintiff.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dennison, P. J.:

This action was commenced in the district court of Butler county by the plaintiff in error to recover the sum of $387 from the defendants in error. The second amended petition alleged that [656]*656the defendants were the directors of the Bank of Augusta, and that the plaintiff had deposited therein the amount claimed when the bank was insolvent and known to be insolvent by the defendants at the time it received his deposit, but that the fact of the bank’s insolvency was not known to him at the time of making said deposit. The defendants demurred to the second amended petition, which demurrer was by the court sustained.

The question involved in this case is the statute of limitations. Since this case was tried in the district court the question has been decided by our supreme court in Frame v. Ashley, 59 Kan. 477, 53 Pac. 474 adversely to the contention of the defendants in error. They have filed an exhaustive brief on the construction of chapter 47, Laws of 1897 (Gen. Stat. 1897, ch. 18), claiming that the decision of the supreme court in Frame v. Ashley, supra, is erroneous. It is our duty to follow that decision.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to overrule the demurrer of the defendants to the second amended petition of the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 P. 508, 8 Kan. App. 655, 1899 Kan. App. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seglem-v-yeager-kanctapp-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack