Sullivan v. Darratt

Supreme Court of Kansas

Sullivan v. Darratt

109 P. 777, 83 Kan. 799, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 245

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 9, 1910

DocketNo. 16,469

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 P. 777 (Sullivan v. Darratt) 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

Sullivan v. Darratt, 109 P. 777, 83 Kan. 799, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 245 (kan 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

All the plaintiffs were required to prove, to-make their case, was employment to effect a trade, performance-of the service, and the amount of their compensation. This they did. It was not essential to recovery that they should allege or-prove that they were licensed agents. The court could not. take judicial notice of the ordinances of the city of Wichita, and none-was pleaded or proved. Unfaithfulness, dual employment and the like are defenses which are waived unless pleaded, and no such defense was pleaded. A jury properly instructed might, have interpreted the employment as that of middlemen only, in which event a commission from both parties to the trade would have been permissible.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and the causéis remanded for a new trial.

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

Per Curiam:

All the plaintiffs were required to prove, to-make their case, was employment to effect a trade, performance-of the service, and the amount of their compensation. This they did. It was not essential to recovery that they should allege or-prove that they were licensed agents. The court could not. take judicial notice of the ordinances of the city of Wichita, and none-was pleaded or proved. Unfaithfulness, dual employment and the like are defenses which are waived unless pleaded, and no such defense was pleaded. A jury properly instructed might, have interpreted the employment as that of middlemen only, in which event a commission from both parties to the trade would have been permissible.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and the causéis remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 P. 777, 83 Kan. 799, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-darratt-kan-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack