Poor v. Tuston
| Decision Date | 09 February 1894 |
| Citation | 35 P. 792,53 Kan. 86 |
| Parties | POOR v. TUSTON et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Case reversed on the authority of Muse v. Wafer, 29 Kan. 279.
Error from district court, Dickinson county; M. B. Nicholson, Judge.
Action by M. M. Tuston and another against Scott E. Poor to restrain execution of a judgment. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
John H. Mahan, for plaintiff in error.
Stambaugh & Hurd, for defendants in error.
This action was brought by Tuston & Herrington to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace against them in favor of the plaintiff in error. It appears that the case was set for hearing on the 11th day of September, 1888, at Chapman. That the attorneys for both parties entered into an agreement to continue the case until October 6th, at Herrington, 18 miles distant, and forwarded it by mail to the justice at Chapman. At the time the case was set for hearing, the plaintiff appeared, and took judgment. The stipulation to continue did not reach the justice until the following day. The petition in this case is fatally defective because it fails to show, even by the most strained inference, that the plaintiffs had a valid defense in the action before the justice of the peace. Muse v. Wafer, 29 Kan. 279. The judgment is therefore reversed.
All the justices concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ollis v. Orr
... ... 164, 47 Am. Rep. 369; Gifford v ... Morrison, 37 Ohio St. 502, 41 Am. Rep. 537; Piggott ... v. Addicks, 3 G. Greene, 427, 56 Am. Dec. 547; Poor ... v. Tuston, 53 Kan. 86, 35 P. 792; Janes v ... Howell, 37 Neb. 320, 40 Am. St. Rep. 494, 55 N.W. 965; ... White v. Crow, 110 U.S. 183, 4 S.Ct ... ...
-
Hughes v. Olson
... ... Black, Judg. §§ 377, 393; Fickes v. Vick, ... 50 Neb. 401; Janes v. Howell, 37 Neb. 320; Combs ... v. Hamlin, 58 Ill.App. 123; Poor v. Tuston, 53 ... Kan. 86; Newman v. Taylor, 69 Miss. 670. Plaintiff ... had an adequate remedy at law. Minnesota Linseed Oil Co ... v. Maginnis, ... ...
-
Splawn v. Perry
...Ableman et al. v. Roth et al., 12 Wis. 81; K. P. Ry. Co. v. Simpson, 11 Kan. 494; Muse et al. v. Wafer, 29 Kan. 279; Poor v. Tuston et al., 53 Kan. 86, 35 P. 792." ¶2 Being therefore of opinion that the petition states facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to equitable relief, the judgment ......
-
Splawn v. Perry
... ... Albeman et al. v. Roth et al., 12 Wis. 90; K. P ... Ry. Co. v. Simpson, 11 Kan. 494; Muse et al. v ... Wafer, 29 Kan. 279; Poor v. Tuston et al., 53 Kan. 86, ... 35 P. 792." ... Being ... therefore of opinion that the petition states facts ... sufficient ... ...