Smith v. Hanson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Smith v. Hanson

150 P. 223, 96 Kan. 83, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 316

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 10, 1915

DocketNo. 18,868

StatusPublished

This text of 150 P. 223 (Smith v. Hanson) 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

Smith v. Hanson, 150 P. 223, 96 Kan. 83, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 316 (kan 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON MOTION.

Per Curiam:

The plaintiffs recovered a judgment against the defendant for $1632. On appeal it was reversed by reason of rulings which affected the recovery of $1415, but not the remaining $217, which was based upon separate items. The appellees ask that the decision be made more definite in several respects. We are asked to order judgment for the $217. The decision was intended to have that effect, and to prevent any possible question it is now so interpreted. We are asked to divide the costs because of the affirmance of this part of the judgment. No substantial attack was made upon it. The controversy here was with regard to the judgment for $1415, and no division of costs appears to be called for. In other respects the opinion is regarded as sufficiently indicating the view of the court.

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

OPINION ON MOTION.

Per Curiam:

The plaintiffs recovered a judgment against the defendant for $1632. On appeal it was reversed by reason of rulings which affected the recovery of $1415, but not the remaining $217, which was based upon separate items. The appellees ask that the decision be made more definite in several respects. We are asked to order judgment for the $217. The decision was intended to have that effect, and to prevent any possible question it is now so interpreted. We are asked to divide the costs because of the affirmance of this part of the judgment. No substantial attack was made upon it. The controversy here was with regard to the judgment for $1415, and no division of costs appears to be called for. In other respects the opinion is regarded as sufficiently indicating the view of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 P. 223, 96 Kan. 83, 1915 Kan. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hanson-kan-1915.