Case ID: kan_67/html/0857-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n     \n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. V. Daugherty v. E. R. Powell.
    (No. 13,039.
    72 Pac. 274.)
    Error from Sedgwick district court; D. M. Dale, judge.
    First opinion filed April 11, 1903.
    Rehearing granted.
    Second opinion filed November 7, 1903.
    Affirmed.
    
      J. V. Daugherty, for plaintiff in error.
    
      H. O. Ruggles, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam:

The errors assigned in this case relate to the conduct of the court below in reference to the admission and exclusion of testimony concerning the validity of a deed of real estate assailed by plaintiff in error, in refusing to submit the case to the jury, and in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant in error. The case was correctly disposed of, for the reason that the pleadings and undisputed evidence established the fact that plaintiff in error was barred from questioning the validity of the instrument in question and the transfer effected by it, and no longer occupied the position of a creditor with an enforceable lien upon >the property.

(74 Pac. 242.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

upon rehearing.

Per Curiam:

Upon a reexamination of this case, it appears that the original opinion correctly disposed of it. Without doubt it did so as far as the claim of plaintiff in error for affirmative relief is concerned, and it would seem that he cannot be as favorably situated to defend the action as Barbara McCalla would be. However this may be, giv- ■■ ing to all the testimony its greatest weight, it is insufficient to show that she would not be both barred by limitation and also estopped from interposing the defense upon which plaintiff in error relied.

Therefore the judgment of the district court is affirmed.