Cowling v. Greenleaf
| Decision Date | 08 May 1885 |
| Citation | 6 P. 907,33 Kan. 570 |
| Parties | P. C. COWLING v. O. J. GREENLEAF |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Lyon county.
Motion for Rehearing.
THE plaintiff in error filed a motion for a rehearing in Cowling v. Greenleaf, (reported in 32 Kan. 392, et seq., wherein the facts are stated.) The opinion herein was filed at the May 1885 session of the court.
Motion for rehearing overruled.
Cunningham & McCarty, for plaintiff in error.
Buck & Feighan, for defendant in error.
This case was tried by the court without a jury. The court made its findings of fact and conclusions of law upon the evidence introduced, and no evidence is preserved in the record. The complaint is, that this court should have construed the following words of the contract: "But it is expressly agreed between the parties that if at any time during the said period of three years either of these parties shall have just cause so to do, he may annul this contract." The contention of plaintiff is, that under the terms of the contract either party had the right to annul the contract for any cause assigned in good faith, and that the plaintiff, acting in good faith, did annul the contract before the commencement of this action; and therefore that he was entitled not only to immediate possession of the sheep in controversy, but also entitled to recover all his costs. The findings of the trial court do not render it necessary for us to construe the words "just cause so to do." The court in its tenth finding of fact stated: "Said contract had not been annulled previously to the commencement of this suit." This finding is somewhat modified by the other findings, but not to the full extent of showing any annulment of the contract by the plaintiff, or that he gave any notice to the defendant that he had or would annul the contract. By the fifth finding of fact, it appears that on September 8, 1882, the plaintiff told the defendant that he was not satisfied with the way the latter was treating the sheep, and that they had better settle up, but at that time there was no annulment of the contract. By the eighth finding of fact, it appears that on November 28, 1882, the defendant left Kansas for Ohio, and did not return until after this action was commenced, and that in his absence the plaintiff went to his residence and demanded of his wife, Mrs. Fannie Greenleaf, and his hired man, Dick Nickerson, the sheep. The finding does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lesan Advertising Co. v. Castleman
...in 1878, it is held that where there is no request made for a special finding, the court is not required to make one. In Cowling v. Greenleaf, 33 Kan. 570, 6 Pac. 907, decided in 1885, the court held that if the party asking for findings is not satisfied with the finding of facts, "he shoul......
-
Lesan Advertising Company v. Castleman
...in 1878, it is held that where there is no request made for a special finding, the court is not required to make one. In Cowling v. Greenleaf, 33 Kan. 570, 6 P. 907, decided 1885, the court held that if the party asking for findings is not satisfied with the finding of facts, "he should hav......
-
The People's Gas Company v. Fletcher
...to make further findings or to modify those made. They are therefore bound by the findings which the court did make. ( Cowling v. Greenleaf, 33 Kan. 570, 6 P. 907; Shuler v. Lashhorn, 67 Kan. 694, 74 P. 264.) was evidence sufficient to support a finding that the Fletchers were not estopped,......
-
Shuler v. Lashhorn
... ... should have asked the trial court to make further findings, ... or modify those made." (Cowling v. Greenleaf, ... 33 Kan. 570, 6 P. 907.) ... Such an ... application to the court should not be delayed until the ... motion for a new ... ...