Wolf v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Wolf v. Thompson

398 P.2d 565, 194 Kan. 145

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 23, 1965

DocketNo. 43,798

StatusPublished

This text of 398 P.2d 565 (Wolf v. Thompson) 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

Wolf v. Thompson, 398 P.2d 565, 194 Kan. 145 (kan 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Robb, J.:

This appeal is from the judgment, order, and decision of the trial court and from the order overruling plaintiffs’ motion for new trial.

On August 15, 1957, plaintiffs purchased lot 27, block 29, in the original town addition to the town of Latham, Kansas. Previously in May, 1955, defendants had acquired lots 28 and 29 of the same block which lots were south of and adjacent to plaintiffs’ property. The trial court in a memorandum opinion found from competent, substantial evidence that a fence had been constructed between the properties more than fifty years ago and had been recognized thereafter as the boundary line. In the formal journal entry of judgment the trial court found generally in favor of defendants and that defendants were not occupying any property belonging to plaintiffs. Judgment was entered accordingly. Hence this appeal.

We have carefully examined the record in this case and there is only one conclusion that can be made from thereon. Plaintiffs have failed to make it affirmatively appear that the trial court committed reversible error with respect to any of the particulars complained of and for this reason we are compelled to hold the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed in all respects.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Robb, J.:

This appeal is from the judgment, order, and decision of the trial court and from the order overruling plaintiffs’ motion for new trial.

On August 15, 1957, plaintiffs purchased lot 27, block 29, in the original town addition to the town of Latham, Kansas. Previously in May, 1955, defendants had acquired lots 28 and 29 of the same block which lots were south of and adjacent to plaintiffs’ property. The trial court in a memorandum opinion found from competent, substantial evidence that a fence had been constructed between the properties more than fifty years ago and had been recognized thereafter as the boundary line. In the formal journal entry of judgment the trial court found generally in favor of defendants and that defendants were not occupying any property belonging to plaintiffs. Judgment was entered accordingly. Hence this appeal.

We have carefully examined the record in this case and there is only one conclusion that can be made from thereon. Plaintiffs have failed to make it affirmatively appear that the trial court committed reversible error with respect to any of the particulars complained of and for this reason we are compelled to hold the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed in all respects.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 P.2d 565, 194 Kan. 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-thompson-kan-1965.