Nichols v. Trueman
| Citation | 101 P. 633,80 Kan. 89 |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1909 |
| Docket Number | 15,946 |
| Parties | JAY NICHOLS v. JOHN W. TRUEMAN |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Decided January, 1909.
Error from Greeley district court; CHARLES E. LOBDELL, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
D. R. Beckstrom, for the plaintiff in error.
George L. Reid, and Russell & Russell, for the defendant in error.
The motion to dismiss must be denied. The cause was submitted below on an agreed statement of facts, and a motion for a new trial was unnecessary. (Atkins v. Nordyke, 60 Kan. 354, 56 P. 533.) The only question presented to, or passed upon by, the trial court was a question of law.
The court held the tax deed void on its face because of its failure to state the address or residence of the grantee. The deed is a compromise tax deed, and had been of record five years when this action was commenced. Since the case was decided by the trial court we have held, in Havel v. Abstract Co., 76 Kan. 336, 91 P. 790, and Trust Co. v. Davis, 76 Kan. 639, 92 P. 707, that such omission in a tax deed which has been of record for five years will not render the deed void on its face. On the authority of these cases the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment for the defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cramer v. Browne
...and conceding all of it to be true the judgment is erroneous. In either situation a motion for new trial is not required. Nichols v. Trueman, 80 Kan. 89, 101 P. 633; International Filter Co. v. Cox Bottling Co., Kan. 645, 132 P. 180; McLeod v. Palmer, 96 Kan. 159, 150 P. 535. It is true the......
-
Schubach v. Hammer
...... Rice, 99 Kan. 99, 160 P. 984; Berggren v. Johnson, 105 Kan. 501, 504, 185 P. 291.) The same ruling. applies when the facts are agreed to (Nichols v. Trueman, 80 Kan. 89, 101 P. 633), or are not disputed. [232 P. 1042] . (Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351, 144 P. 251). In none. of these ......
-
Willey v. Gas Service Co.
...make an extensive review of our decisions as to the necessity or propriety of filing such a motion. It was long ago held in Nichols v. Trueman, 80 Kan. 89, 101 P. 633, that it is not essential to a review of a judgment rendered on an agreed statement of facts that a motion for a new trial b......
-
Bowen v. Wilson
...... a new trial in the district court was necessary to have a. review of the order. (Wagner v. Railway Co., 73. Kan. 283, 85 P. 299; Nichols v. Trueman, 80 Kan. 89,. 101 P. 633.) The time in which the appellant could appeal. commenced when the cause was finally disposed of. (. McIntosh ......