TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Houston v. Comm'rs of Cloud County

S. D. Houston, Jr. v. Comm'rs of Cloud County

Houston v. Comm'rs of Cloud Cnty., 19 Kan. 396 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1877
Judges
Horton
Citations
19 Kan. 396
Headnotes
Juey Tbial, In Equity Cases. An action brought to restrain the assignment and transfer of tax-sale certificates, and to set aside the tax sale on which such certificates are based, is in the nature of the proceeding formerly called a “suit in equity,” and is not a proceeding in which either party may demand and have a jury trial.
Summary
M'ror from Cloud District Court. Action by Houston, against the commissioners and treasurer of Cloud county, to restrain the assignment and transfer of certain tax-sale certificates and to set aside the treasurer’s sale for taxes upon which such certificates were based. The district court gave judgment in favor of defendants, at October Term 1875, and plaintiff brings the case here.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Horton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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

It is understood that the same questions are presented in this case as in that of Hagaman v. Comm’rs *397 of Cloud Co., just decided, {ante, p.394,) with the exception that on the trial of this cause, the plaintiff Houston demanded a jury, and his claim being denied, he makes the refosal of a jury trial an additional ground of error. But this point is settled against such claim by the decision in the case of McCardell v. McNay, 17 Kas. 433 . The judgment in this case is therefore affirmed upon the authority of Hagaman’s case, supra, and the cases there cited.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

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

1881–1882: 21911–1912: 11915–1916: 11921–1922: 118812026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McCoy v. McCoy1911 OK 472, 121 P. 176
  2. Rich v. Bowker25 Kan. 7 (1881)
  3. Parker v. Hamilton1915 OK 555, 154 P. 65
  4. Cole v. Drum197 P. 1105 (Kan. 1921)
  5. Keith v. Keith26 Kan. 26 (1881)

Most recent

  1. Cole v. Drum197 P. 1105 (Kan. 1921)
  2. Parker v. Hamilton1915 OK 555, 154 P. 65
  3. McCoy v. McCoy1911 OK 472, 121 P. 176
  4. Keith v. Keith26 Kan. 26 (1881)
  5. Rich v. Bowker25 Kan. 7 (1881)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
McCardell v. McNay, 17 Kan. 433 (1877) 12

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