The Union Park Land Company v. Muret
| Decision Date | 11 July 1896 |
| Docket Number | 8714 |
| Citation | 45 P. 589,57 Kan. 192 |
| Parties | THE UNION PARK LAND COMPANY v. GEORGE P. MURET |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1896.
Error from Cowley District Court Hon. M. G. Troup, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
THIS action was brought by George P. Muret against the Union Park Land Company and L. E. Holcomb. In his petition the plaintiff alleged that, on the 19th of March, 1887, Albert H. Connelly executed his promissory note to the plaintiff for $ 14,482.50 with interest at 10 per cent.; that, to secure the payment of the same, Connelly and wife executed a mortgage on certain lands described in the petition; that Connelly having failed to pay the note, the plaintiff, on the 7th of April, 1888 commenced an action against him and his wife to foreclose the mortgage, and, afterward, recovered a judgment, under which the land was sold and bid in by the plaintiff for $ 11,000 and a deed therefor was duly executed to him by the Sheriff that the defendants claim an interest in the land, but that whatever rights they have are inferior to those of the plaintiff. The relief demanded was that the defendants should be barred and foreclosed of all interest in the premises; that the title to the lands should be quieted as against them, and that such other relief should be given as the plaintiff might be equitably entitled to. Copies of the note and mortgage, and also of the judgment in the former action and the sheriff's deed, were attached to the petition. The amended answer of the plaintiff in error admits the averments of the petition as to the execution of the written instruments and the existence of the records, copies of which were attached to the petition; and alleges that, on the 30th day of April, 1887, Connelly and wife conveyed the land described in the mortgage to the Union Park Land Company, by a deed filed and recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds May 9, 1887, a copy of which was attached to the answer. The case was called for trial May 20, 1892. The Court found from the pleadings that the title of the Union Park Land Company was inferior and subject to the mortgage lien of the plaintiff; that there was due on the plaintiff's mortgage for principal and interest the sum of $ 22,013.40, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a foreclosure. It thereupon adjudged that, if the defendant should fail for six months from the date of judgment to pay said sum with interest, the mortgage should be foreclosed and the defendant barred of all title to and interest in the property. May 27, 1892, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. This motion was heard and overruled May 31, and the defendant was then granted 60 days in which to make and serve a case. A case was thereafter made and settled, and the defendant brings the case here alleging error in the proceedings of the Court.
Judgment affirmed.
Wheeler & Switzer, for plaintiff in error.
McDermott & Johnson, for defendant in error.
OPINION
There was no trial of any issue of fact in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gish, Brook & Co.
...such time begins to run from the entry of the judgment. Mound City Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Twining et al., 19 Kan. 349; Union Park Land Co. v. Muret, 57 Kan. 192, 45 P. 589. The questions presented for review in the case at bar by the petition of plaintiff in error are such matters as this co......
-
Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gish, Brook & Co.
... ... , against the Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and ... defendant brings error, ... Life Ins. Co. v. Twining ... et al., 19 Kan. 349; Union Park Land Co. v ... Muret, 57 Kan. 192, 45 P. 589. The ... ...
-
Clapper v. Putnam Co.
...on the pleadings, there can be no trial of the issues of fact, no verdict, and no motion for a new trial is required. Land Co. v. Muret, 57 Kan. 192, 45 P. 589. When an objection to the introduction of evidence under the pleadings is sustained, there can be no investigation, much less deter......
-
Gardner v. Pereboom
...on the pleadings there can be no trial of the issues of fact, no verdict, and no motion for a new trial is required. Land Co. v. Muret, 57 Kan. 192, 45 Pac. 589. * * *' (p. 285, 85 P. p. The appellee further suggests that there is no showing of prejudice because of the consolidation and tha......