Walter v. Logan

Supreme Court of Kansas

Walter v. Logan

76 P. 1131, 69 Kan. 851, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 353

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 7, 1904

DocketNo. 13,592

StatusPublished

This text of 76 P. 1131 (Walter v. Logan) 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

Walter v. Logan, 76 P. 1131, 69 Kan. 851, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 353 (kan 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The reply of H. E. Walter to the amended.' answer of Oliver P. and S. F. Hill was sufficiently verified ■ to deny any appointment or authority alleged in the • answer. (Gibson v. Shorb, 7 Kan. App. 732, 52 Pac. 579.)

We have read the evidence in the case and do not find that, in legal effect, it differs materially from the evidence ■ introduced on the former trial, which was held insufficient to support a judgment for defendants below. (Walter v. Logan, 63 Kan. 193, 65 Pac. 225.)

The judgment will be reversed and a new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam:

The reply of H. E. Walter to the amended.' answer of Oliver P. and S. F. Hill was sufficiently verified ■ to deny any appointment or authority alleged in the • answer. (Gibson v. Shorb, 7 Kan. App. 732, 52 Pac. 579.)

We have read the evidence in the case and do not find that, in legal effect, it differs materially from the evidence ■ introduced on the former trial, which was held insufficient to support a judgment for defendants below. (Walter v. Logan, 63 Kan. 193, 65 Pac. 225.)

The judgment will be reversed and a new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 P. 1131, 69 Kan. 851, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-v-logan-kan-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack