Title: Bates v. Alliston
Citation: 186 Kan. 548, 352 P.2d 16
Docket Number: 41,524
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 1960

186 Kan. 548 (1960)
352 P.2d 16
CHARLES T. BATES, JR., Appellee,
v.
L.R. ALLISTON, Appellant.
No. 41,524

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 14, 1960.
Kirke C. Veeder, of Independence, argued the cause, and Rex A. Lafferty and Steven W. Rogers, both of Fredonia, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Charles E. Henshall, of Chanute, argued the cause, and T.D. Hampson, of Fredonia, was with him on the briefs for the appellee.
*549 The opinion of the court was delivered by
ROBB, J.:
This is an appeal from the trial court's order overruling defendant's general demurrer to plaintiff's petition.
While the demurrer included an additional provision requesting that judgment be entered, it was not presented to the trial court or mentioned in the notice of appeal, and we shall therefore consider it abandoned.
The petition in pertinent part stated that plaintiff owned and occupied the southeast quarter of section 14, township 28, range 14 east of the 6th P.M. in Wilson county, and defendant owned and occupied the west half of the same section. The petition further alleged:
This is another case where the petition, attacked by a demurrer, fairly apprised the adversary of the nature of the claim and is therefore subject to liberal construction. (In connection with this rule, see Otto v. Swartz, No. 41,838, 186 Kan. 689, 352 P.2d 12, this day decided.)
*550 G.S. 1949, 29-101, provides in part:
G.S. 1949, 29-105 reads in part:
G.S. 1949, 29-402 provides that if any neat cattle shall break into any enclosure and the owner is aggrieved thereby, he may apply to the fence viewers of the township to examine the fence and investigate the subject of damages but he must give at least one day's notice to the owner of the trespassing animal as to when this will be done.
G.S. 1949, 29-408 provides that the owner of such enclosure may take such trespassing animal into possession until all damages recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction are paid.
We are unable to see the similarity between this petition and those involved in Wilson v. Rule, 169 Kan. 296, 219 P.2d 690, and Abbott v. Howard, 169 Kan. 305, 219 P.2d 696, discussed by the parties and it would serve no purpose here to point out the many dissimilarities except to state briefly that those cases involved collisions between automotive vehicles on the highway and domestic animals loose on such highway. In any event there is no resemblance between this petition and the ones there involved. In this appeal we are concerned only with the sufficiency of the allegations of the petition before us.
The petition sufficiently alleged a cause of action and this is another one of those cases where the issues should be joined, submitted to the trier of the facts, and judgment entered.
Affirmed.