Deetjen v. Richter
Decision Date | 10 April 1885 |
Citation | 6 P. 595,33 Kan. 410 |
Parties | NIC DEETJEN v. RUDOLPH RICHTER |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Clay District Court.
ACTION by Richter against Deetjen in the nature of ejectment commenced December 5, 1882, to recover possession of lots 2 6 and 9 of section 5, in township 7 south, of range 2, in Clay county. Trial at the May Term, 1883, before the court, a jury being waived. The court found the following conclusions of fact:
The court thereon made the following conclusions of law:
To all and each of said conclusions of fact and of law, the defendant at the time duly excepted. Afterward the court rendered judgment that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the land described in the petition, together with his costs in the action. The court, however, under the amended answer filed by the defendant, adjudged that the amount of the mortgages given by Lydia Richter upon the premises, together...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Kasparek
...of the mortgage on the trustee). 52 See Int'l Harvester Co. v. Myers, 86 Kan. 497, 121 P. 500 (1912) (collecting cases); Deetjen v. Richter, 33 Kan. 410, 6 P. 595 (1885). 53 See Urschel, 157 P.2d at 810 (inquiry notice of an unrecorded 54 See Schwalm v. Deanhardt, 21 Kan.App.2d 667, 906 P.2......
-
Ludowese v. Amidon
... ... information. This requires not only an inquiry from the ... tenant but from his landlord. Deetjen v. Richter, 33 ... Kan. 410, 6 P. 595. "The possession of land by a party, ... through his tenants, is notice to all the world of his rights ... ...
-
In re Kasparek, Case No. 07-13019 (Bankr. Kan. 7/29/2009), Case No. 07-13019.
...the title of the defendant and affirmed the finding that plaintiffs by their deed date August 16 obtained no title against the defendant. In Deetjen,62 the court held that where a purchaser had notice that a tenant leased farm land from a third party, the purchaser was put on notice of the ......
-
Penrose v. Cooper
...subsequent purchaser, and all others, have such implied notice of his rights as will amount to actual notice of his title. (Deetjen v. Richter, 33 Kan. 410, 6 P. 595; Stough v. Lumber Co., 70 Kan. 713, 79 P. Lang v. Adams, 71 Kan. 309, 312, 80 P. 593.) The English rule is that possession by......