Clark v. Axley, 38604
| Decision Date | 07 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 38604,38604 |
| Citation | 254 P.2d 313,174 Kan. 3 |
| Parties | CLARK v. AXLEY. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an action to enforce a contract for the conveyance of real estate the record is examined and it is held the court did not err in any of the matters specified and in rendering judgment for plaintiff.
Robert L. Kimbrough, Topeka, argued the cause, and George E. McCullough, Topeka and W. J. King, of Geuda Springs, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
W. H. Schwinn, Wellington, argued the cause, and Tom L. Schwinn, Wellington, was with him on the briefs, for appellee.
This was an action to enforce a contract for the conveyance of real estate. The case has been before this court previously in Clark v. Axley, 162 Kan. 339, 176 P.2d 256, which was an appeal from an order overruling defendant's demurrer to the amended petition. The detailed summary of the allegations of the amended petition and of the provisions of the contract sued upon, contained in the opinion in that case, are by reference incorporated herein.
Following our former decision defendant filed an amended answer. This pleading is lengthy and will not be detailed. It is sufficient to say that in general it denies certain grounds for relief relied upon by plaintiff, alleges reasons why plaintiff should not recover, and prays for judgment quieting title to the property in defendant.
Upon the issues thus joined trial was had, and at the conclusion thereof the court made ten conclusions of fact and four of law. They will not be set out, but the substance of them is that plaintiff had proved the allegations of her amended petition and was entitled to the relief prayed for. Pursuant thereto the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $558.55, and decreed that within sixty days from date defendant execute a deed to the property in question to Cradit, and that on defendant's failure to perform, as directed, the judgment and decree be held and adjudged to operate as a transfer of the property.
Defendant's motion for a new trial being overruled, he has appealed and alleges twelve specifications of error. An examination of them discloses that, with possibly one exception, all questions of law raised by them were decided by our former decision, supra. That exception has to do with defendant's contention that the written contract between plaintiff and defendant, and upon which this action was brought, was erroneously admitted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berger v. Bierschbach
...but the court lacked jurisdiction to treat it as an equitable mortgage. A similar contention was before this court in Clark v. Axley, 174 Kan. 3, 254 P.2d 313, which was an action to enforce a contract for conveyance of real estate. The trial court entered a money judgment in plaintiff's fa......