Cunningham v. Hill
T. A. Cunningham v. R. W. Hill, as Partners, etc.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam:
The contract upon which this action was brought provided for a penalty in case of breach and not for stipulated damages. The principles of law governing the case are fully stated and well illustrated in the following decisions of this court: St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Shoemaker, 27 Kan. 677 ; Heatwole v. Gorr ell, 35 Kan. 692 ; Condon v. Kemper, 47 Kan. 126 ; Land Co. v. Barton, 51 Kan. 554 ; Davidson v. Hughes, 76 Kan. 247 ; Railroad Co. v. Gaba, 78 Kan. 432 ; Bank v. Burlington, 79 Kan. 797 .)
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.