Pachner v. Hoppas
| Decision Date | 10 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | 26,148 |
| Citation | 119 Kan. 415,239 P. 967 |
| Parties | ALBERT PACHNER, Appellant, v. S. A. HOPPAS, Appellee |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1925.
Appeal from Decatur district court; WILLARD SIMMONS, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
LIS PENDENS -- Lease Pending Appeal -- Effect of Reversal. One who during the pendency of an appeal (without stay) from a judgment deciding the ownership of land accepts a deed or lease from the person adjudged to be the owner is not protected in his possession thereunder so as to be entitled to crops sown by him, maturing after the reversal of the judgment, as against the adverse claimant of the land, who was finally adjudged to have been its owner from the beginning.
A. C T. Geiger, J. P. Noble and W. K. Thompson, all of Oberlin, for the appellant.
W. S. Langmade and V. D. Woodward, both of Oberlin, for the appellee.
S. A. Hoppas brought an action against Fred Bremer for specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of a tract of land. The district court on May 12, 1922, gave Hoppas a money judgment on the theory that Bremer was unable to make a title. Bremer appealed on June 15, 1922, and the supreme court on November 10, 1923, modified the judgment so as to require specific performance. The original judgment carried an implication that Bremer was the full owner of the land. The final judgment amounted to an adjudication that he merely held the legal title as security for the payment of $ 3,500 by Hoppas, who had the equitable ownership and right of possession. A fuller statement of the facts will be found in the opinion in Hoppas v. Bremer, ante, p. 411. On June 21, 1922, Bremer executed a deed to W. A. Wickersham, who on August 1 following gave a lease to Albert Pachner. Pachner occupied the land in the fall of 1922 and in 1923. On April 18, 1924, Hoppas paid to Bremer the $ 3,500 and received a deed. In August, 1924, the present action was brought against Hoppas by Pachner to recover the value of grain sown in October, 1923, and in March, 1924, by the plaintiff, and harvested in July by the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from a judgment upon an instructed verdict for the defendant.
The plaintiff's claim is based upon the theory that the original judgment in the action for specific performance amounted to an adjudication that Bremer was the owner of the land and entitled to its possession; that this judgment determined the rights of possession for the period between its rendition and its reversal; that by reason of it the possession held by the plaintiff Pachner was lawful; that this condition continued until Hoppas obtained a deed; and that the plaintiff was entitled to the tenant's share of the crop sowed while he was lawfully in possession, although it matured after his right of occupancy had ceased.
The time of the execution of the deed to Hoppas is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weston v. McBerry
...win, he still took the risk of a reversal and of the final outcome of the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). See also Pachner v. Hoppas, 119 Kan. 415, 239 P. 967 (1925). As early as 1900, the Supreme Court of Iowa had relied on that same continuing vitality in Olson v. Leibpke, 110 Iowa 594, ......
-
In re Gugenhan
...is pending, third parties can acquire no interest in the subject matter. An action remains pending through appeal. Pachner v. Hoppas, 119 Kan. 415, 239 Pac. 967 (1925); Kremer v. Schutz, 82 Kan. 175, 107 Pac. 780 Here, the trial court's order of October 5, 1983 was not a final judgment as d......
-
Burkhalter v. Lockwood
... ... and Sweet was entitled to a deed carrying title as of the ... date of the sheriff's sale. (Cox v. Anderson, ... 115 Kan. 709, 224 P. 908; Hoppas v. Bremer, 119 Kan ... 411, 239 P. 961; Pachner v. Hoppas, 119 Kan. 415, ... 239 P. 967.) The result was, Matteson's claim of rent due ... from ... ...