TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nuhfer v. Flanagan

N. E. Nuhfer v. D. D. Flanagan (J. H. Edwards, Appellee)

Nuhfer v. Flanagan, 124 P. 418 (Kan. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 8, 1912
Docket
No. 17,706
Judges
Mason
Citations
124 P. 41887 Kan. 4201912 Kan. LEXIS 164
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. Appeal — Amount Involved — Jurisdiction. Where the district court sustains a demurrer to the petition, filed by a defendant against whom the only relief sought is a judgment for less than $100, no appeal lies from the ruling, although the plaintiff is seeking judgments against other defendants for more than that amount.
Summary
' Appeal from Chautauqua district court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Mason

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

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

A number of persons, including. J. H. Edwards, signed an agreement in effect purporting to guarantee the payment of certain notes, aggregating $750, the liability of each being limited to his proportional share. N. E. Nuhfer, the payee, brought action upon the agreement, asking judgment against one defendant for $390 and against each of the others, including J. H. Edwards, for $75.65. Edwards de *421 inurred to the petition and the demurrer was sustained. Nuhfer seeks to appeal from this ruling, nothing else being involved. The amount in controversy, so far as this proceeding is concerned, is less than $100, and no appeal can be taken. (Civ. Code, § 566; Trader v. School District, 86 Kan. 878 , 122 Pac. 895 ; Sillix v. Bagby, 53 Kan. 245 , 36 Pac. 327 .) The controversy sought to be brought here is only that between Nuhfer and Edwards, and the fact that Nuhfer in the same action was seeking judgments for additional amounts against other defendants does not affect the matter, even if it could afford a basis for a review of the ruling in question under any circumstances, which seems unlikely. (Samp v. Braden, 73 Kan. 279 , 85 Pac. 289 .)

How later courts describe this case

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

1916: 11918: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tucker v. Tucker154 P. 269 (Kan. 1916)
  2. Wayman v. Soller171 P. 601 (Kan. 1918)

Most recent

  1. Wayman v. Soller171 P. 601 (Kan. 1918)
  2. Tucker v. Tucker154 P. 269 (Kan. 1916)

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
Samp v. Braden, 85 P. 289 (Kan. 1906) 3
Trader v. Sch. Dist. No. 75, 122 P. 895 (Kan. 1912) 2
Sillix v. Bagby, 53 Kan. 245 (1894) 1

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