State ex rel. Lewis v. Carlander

Supreme Court of Kansas

State ex rel. Lewis v. Carlander

39 Kan. 655

DecidedJuly 15, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Kan. 655 (State ex rel. Lewis v. Carlander) 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

State ex rel. Lewis v. Carlander, 39 Kan. 655 (kan 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an action to set aside a sale of a tract of school land situate in Pratt county, and the certificate of sale issued by the county clerk on October 13, 1884, to one Eli P. Williams, which certificate was assigned and transferred on October 30, 1884, to the defendant.

The sale is attacked upon the grounds that the petition praying for a sale was not made nor presented by a sufficient number of householders of the township in which the land is [656]*656situate; that the persons appointed by the county superintendent as appraisers were not disinterested householders of the township at the time their appraisement was made and returned; and that the appraisement and sale were illegal, fraudulent, and void.

The petition does not specify the facts upon which the charges of illegality and fraud are made, nor is it alleged that the plaintiff has returned or offered to return the money paid by the purchaser upon the contract sought to be annulled. Following the decisions in The State, ex rel., v. Dennis, ante, p. 509, 18 Pac. Rep. 723, and The State, ex rel., v. Williams, ante, p. 517, 18 Pac. Rep. 727, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an action to set aside a sale of a tract of school land situate in Pratt county, and the certificate of sale issued by the county clerk on October 13, 1884, to one Eli P. Williams, which certificate was assigned and transferred on October 30, 1884, to the defendant.

The sale is attacked upon the grounds that the petition praying for a sale was not made nor presented by a sufficient number of householders of the township in which the land is [656]*656situate; that the persons appointed by the county superintendent as appraisers were not disinterested householders of the township at the time their appraisement was made and returned; and that the appraisement and sale were illegal, fraudulent, and void.

The petition does not specify the facts upon which the charges of illegality and fraud are made, nor is it alleged that the plaintiff has returned or offered to return the money paid by the purchaser upon the contract sought to be annulled. Following the decisions in The State, ex rel., v. Dennis, ante, p. 509, 18 Pac. Rep. 723, and The State, ex rel., v. Williams, ante, p. 517, 18 Pac. Rep. 727, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Kan. 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-lewis-v-carlander-kan-1888.