Garanflo v. Cooley
| Decision Date | 06 February 1885 |
| Citation | 33 Kan. 137,5 P. 766 |
| Parties | FREDERICK GARANFLO v. ORRIN COOLEY |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Osborne District Court.
THE opinion states the case. At the February Term, 1884, the defendant Cooley recovered a judgment against plaintiff Garanflo, who brings it here for review.
Judgment affirmed.
R. G Hays, for plaintiff in error.
Saxey & Smith, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This action was brought in the district court of Osborne county by Frederick Garanflo as plaintiff, to enjoin Orrin Cooley, the defendant, from cutting, harvesting, or in any manner interfering with a growing crop upon a tract of land before that time conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant. After issue was first joined between the parties and the trial had been commenced, objection was made by the defendant to the introduction of certain testimony offered by the plaintiff. The objection being sustained, the plaintiff asked and obtained leave to amend his petition by interlineation. The defendant then moved the court to require the plaintiff to make his petition more definite and certain, which motion being sustained, the plaintiff upon application was granted leave to file an amended petition beyond the term, and the case was continued to the following term. An amended petition was accordingly filed, whereupon the defendant demurred thereto, alleging that the amended petition did not state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff, alleging error, brings the case to this court for review.
The action of the court in sustaining the objection to testimony, and the other rulings made before the filing of the amended petition, were excepted to by the plaintiff, and are assigned as error. Whether or not the court erred in these rulings, we cannot now inquire. In asking and obtaining leave to file an amended petition, plaintiff must be held to have waived whatever of irregularity or error there may have been prior to filing the same. It was substituted for the first petition, and to all intents and purposes became the original pleading in the case.
The only question, then, which is before us, is the sufficiency of the amended petition. From the statements therein we learn that Garanflo was the owner and in possession of a quarter-section of farming land, upon which there was a growing crop of wheat and rye; that Cooley likewise owned a farm in that neighborhood, and that on or about the 24th of January, 1883, a verbal contract was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, by which it was agreed to exchange farms, Garanflo reserving the growing crop which was upon his. Afterward the exchange was made, and the plaintiff conveyed his farm to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of Roloff
...the title to the land. . . . This general rule has been stated in decisions involving varied facts. Some of them are Garanflo v. Cooley, 33 Kan. 137, 5 P. 766 [1885]; Goodwin v. Smith, 49 Kan. 351, 31 P. 153 [1892]; National Bank v. Beegle, 52 Kan. 709, 35 P. 814 [1894]; Brendle v. Hudson, ......
-
McCoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...a change in Congressional policy.6 The decision of the Tax Court is reversed. 1 Chapman v. Veach, 32 Kan. 167, 4 P. 100; Garanflo v. Cooley, 33 Kan. 137, 5 P. 766; Missouri Val. Land Co. v. Barwick, 50 Kan. 57, 31 P. 685; First National Bank of Clay Center v. Beegle, 52 Kan. 709, 35 P. 814;......
-
Grabow v. Mccracken
...is now before this court for determination. Noffsinger & Hinch, for plaintiff in error, cited: Smith v. Leighton, 38 Kan. 544; Garanflo v. Cooley, 33 Kan. 137; Chapman v. Veach, 32 Kan. 167. F. P. Whistler, for defendants in error. WILLIAMS, J. ¶1 The sole question for determination is whet......
-
Lawellin v. Eakins
...petition becomes and must be treated as the original petition, citing Long v. Hubbard, 6 Kan.App. 878, 50 P. 968, and Garanflo v. Cooley, 33 Kan. 137, 5 P. 766, and, as no motion was directed against the second amended petition, it is to be liberally construed. In Fullington v. Goodrich, 16......