Hurd v. Harvey County Com'rs

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtHOLT, C.:
Citation40 Kan. 92,19 P. 325
Decision Date06 October 1888
PartiesW. H. HURD et al. v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HARVEY COUNTY

19 P. 325

40 Kan. 92

W. H. HURD et al.
v.
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HARVEY COUNTY

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 6, 1888


Error from Harvey District Court.

THE County Board of Harvey County brought an action in ejectment against plaintiffs in error for a tract of land described as "Block A" in Sedgwick City, Kansas. It is claimed by the plaintiff Board that this tract was dedicated for a public park; the defendant Hurd claims title to a part of it by deed from the town company of Sedgwick City, and defendant Massey claims part of it by conveyance from Hurd to himself. Concerning the alleged dedication, it appears that in 1870 one T. D. Floyd was the owner of the west half of the southwest quarter, section 34, township 24, range 1, in what was then Sedgwick county. Upon the 11th of July of that year, he platted the land into streets, alleys, lots and blocks; a copy of this plat was filed with the register of deeds of Sedgwick county. At that time Floyd was a married man, but did not live upon the land described. His wife did not join with him in the execution of the plat. On the 26th day of September, 1870, Floyd and wife conveyed the land above described by deed to the Sedgwick City town company; in the deed there is no reference to this plat. On August 12th, 1871, the Sedgwick City town company deeded said land to the Sedgwick town company. On the 21st day of October of that year the Sedgwick town company platted certain territory, including the land above described; the plat was duly filed in the office of the register of deeds. In the deed from the Sedgwick City town company to the Sedgwick town company there is the following reference made to the plat filed by Floyd, in describing the land conveyed. "All of lots and blocks in the town of Sedgwick City as designated by the recorded plat of the survey thereof except," and here follow certain described lots which answer the description of Floyd's plat. In the Floyd town plat this tract was written "Block A;" in the notes of description it was declared that "Block A" was set aside for a public park, and was bounded on the south by Fourth street, on the east by Franklin avenue, on the north by Fifth street, and on the west by Madison street, which was not named on the plat, but has since been called by that name. There is also this further description in the Floyd plat: "Lots in block A, from Nos. 1 to 10 inclusive, are 26 4/10 feet wide, and eight rods long. Lots Nos. 11 to 24 inclusive, are three rods wide by eight rods deep." In a copy of this plat of the town company this land is represented as an undivided block, with the word "Park" written across it, but in the explanatory notes appended is the following: "Lots 1 to 12 in block A are 23 1/2x132. Lots 13 to 26 are 48x132 feet."

Trial at the February term, 1886, and judgment for the plaintiff Board. The defendants bring case here for review.

Judgment reversed.

Ady & Henry, and Bowman & Bucher, for plaintiffs in error.

A. L. Greene, for defendant in error.

HOLT, C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION [19 P. 326]

[40 Kan. 93] HOLT, C.:

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Higginson v. Slattery
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 15, 1912
    ...v. Reitz, 50 Md. 574, 581. See, also, Douglass v. Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599, 610, 24 South. 745,43 L. R. A. 376;Hurd v. Harvey County, 40 Kan. 92, 95, 19 Pac. 325;People v. Park & Ocean R. R. Co., 76 Cal. 156, 18 Pac. 141;West Chicago Park Com. v. McMullen, 134 Ill. 170, 178, 25 N. E. 676,10......
  • Higginson v. Slattery
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 15, 1912
    ...v. Reitz, 50 Md. 574, 581. See, also, Douglass v. Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599, 610, 24 So. 745, 43 L. R. A. 376; Hurd v. Harvey County, 40 Kan. 92, 95, 19 P. 325; People v. Park & Ocean R. R. Co., 76 Cal. 156, 18 P. 141; West Chicago Park Com. v. McMullen, 134 Ill. 170, 178, 25 N.E. 676, 10 L.......
  • In re Stanley Station Associates, LP, Bankruptcy No. 90-40324.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Kansas
    • April 24, 1992
    ...under normal circumstances. Since the mortgagee has no title, an action by him to eject the mortgagor will not lie. Hurd v. Harvey County, 40 Kan. 92, 19 P. 325 III The development of the Kansas rule on the ability of a mortgagee to gain possession of rents before foreclosure sale begins wi......
  • Rupp v. Rupp, No. 38157
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • March 10, 1951
    ...which deprived appellant of his present right of possession would deprive him of the remedy of ejectment. Hurd v. Comm'rs of Harvey County, 40 Kan. 92, 19 P. 325; 18 Am.Jur. It was stipulated that appellant had a legal estate in the land; the question is, was he entitled to possession there......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Higginson v. Slattery
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 15, 1912
    ...v. Reitz, 50 Md. 574, 581. See, also, Douglass v. Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599, 610, 24 South. 745,43 L. R. A. 376;Hurd v. Harvey County, 40 Kan. 92, 95, 19 Pac. 325;People v. Park & Ocean R. R. Co., 76 Cal. 156, 18 Pac. 141;West Chicago Park Com. v. McMullen, 134 Ill. 170, 178, 25 N. E. 676,10......
  • Higginson v. Slattery
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 15, 1912
    ...v. Reitz, 50 Md. 574, 581. See, also, Douglass v. Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599, 610, 24 So. 745, 43 L. R. A. 376; Hurd v. Harvey County, 40 Kan. 92, 95, 19 P. 325; People v. Park & Ocean R. R. Co., 76 Cal. 156, 18 P. 141; West Chicago Park Com. v. McMullen, 134 Ill. 170, 178, 25 N.E. 676, 10 L.......
  • In re Stanley Station Associates, LP, Bankruptcy No. 90-40324.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Kansas
    • April 24, 1992
    ...under normal circumstances. Since the mortgagee has no title, an action by him to eject the mortgagor will not lie. Hurd v. Harvey County, 40 Kan. 92, 19 P. 325 III The development of the Kansas rule on the ability of a mortgagee to gain possession of rents before foreclosure sale begins wi......
  • Rupp v. Rupp, No. 38157
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • March 10, 1951
    ...which deprived appellant of his present right of possession would deprive him of the remedy of ejectment. Hurd v. Comm'rs of Harvey County, 40 Kan. 92, 19 P. 325; 18 Am.Jur. It was stipulated that appellant had a legal estate in the land; the question is, was he entitled to possession there......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT