TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Myers v. Fleetwood Farms, Inc.

Howard C. Myers, Appellee, v. Fleetwood Farms, Inc., Appellant

Myers v. Fleetwood Farms, Inc., 271 P.2d 263 (Kan. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 12, 1954
Docket
No. 39,399
Judges
Price
Citations
271 P.2d 263176 Kan. 5151954 Kan. LEXIS 305

Opinion — Price

The opinion of the court was delivered by Price, J.:

This is an action to reform a written cattle-feeding contract to conform to an alleged prior oral agreement between the parties, and to recover judgment for an alleged balance due under the contract as reformed. As a basis for reformation plaintiff alternatively alleges mutual mistake of the parties and fraud.

Defendant has appealed from an order overruling its demurrer to the amended petition.

The demurrer contains three paragraphs, the first being directed to the allegations of fraud, the second to those of mutual mistake, while the third is directed to the entire amended petition on the grounds such pleading contains a confusion of theories and does not state a cause of action. The order does not indicate upon what ground or grounds the demurrer was overruled, but we are advised that it was considered as a general demurrer which challenged the sufficiency of the entire amended petition to state a cause of action upon either theory advanced by plaintiff. Under the general rule, therefore, if the amended petition states a cause of action on any theory the demurrer was properly overruled.

(Allen County State Bank v. Wilson, 140 Kan. 577, 579 , 37 P. 2d 1002 , and Marchant v. Layton, 173 Kan. 341 , 245 P. 2d 973 .)

This is a companion case to Myers v. Fleetwood Farms, Inc.

(case No. 39,417), 176 Kan. 508 , 271 P. 2d 257 , this day decided, and, with two exceptions, the facts and issues are substantially identical. The exceptions are that in the instant case the written contract was mailed to plaintiff for his signature and plaintiffs grounds for relief are pleaded in the alternative.

Under the circumstances we consider it unnecessary to set out *517 the allegations of the amended petition and the contentions of the parties. All have been examined and given careful consideration, but, in a general way, the decision in the companion case is controlling on the questions here involved.

In our opinion the allegations of the amended petition are sufficient to state a cause of action, and the order of the lower court overruling defendant’s demurrer thereto is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11961: 119572026peak 1957 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. FERNCO, INC. v. Kennedy309 P.2d 400 (Kan. 1957)
  2. Morehead v. Rush358 P.2d 752 (Kan. 1961)

Most recent

  1. Morehead v. Rush358 P.2d 752 (Kan. 1961)
  2. FERNCO, INC. v. Kennedy309 P.2d 400 (Kan. 1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Allen Cnty. State Bank v. Wilson, 37 P.2d 1002 (Kan. 1934) 6
Marchant v. Layton, 245 P.2d 973 (Kan. 1952) 5
Myers v. Fleetwood Farms, Inc., 271 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1954) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list