TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Klingbeil v. Neubauer

Augusta Klingbeil v. Fritz Neubauer

Klingbeil v. Neubauer, 208 P. 255 (Kan. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 8, 1922
Docket
No. 23,856
Judges
Mason
Citations
208 P. 255111 Kan. 7161922 Kan. LEXIS 331
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. Forcible Detainer — May Be Maintained by One Cotenant Against Stiqmer to the Title. A proceeding under the forcible entry and detainer statífí§ may be maintained by one of several tenants in common'against a stranger' to the title.
Summary
Appeal from Bourbon district court; Edward C. Gates, judge.

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.:

Augusta Klingbeil began a proceeding against Fritz Neubauer under the forcible entry and detainer statute. The plaintiff recovered judgment and the defendant appeals.

In the course of the trial it developed that before the proceeding was begun the plaintiff had conveyed away an undivided one-fourth interest in the tract in controversy. The defendant contends that as the plaintiff did not own the property she could not maintain the action. One of several tenants in common may maintain a proceeding for forcible entry and detainer against a stranger, each so *717 far as he is concerned being entitled to possession of the whole estate. . (26 C. J. 835; 11 R. C. L. 1171.)

R is said in the appellee’s brief that the defendant has been dispossessed as the result of the affirmance of a former judgment against him in favor of a representative of the Klingbeil estate (Klingbeil v. Neubauer, 110 Kan. 253 , 203 Pac. 731 ), thus rendering the present proceeding moot. In view of what has already béen said this matter need not be gone into.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1929: 11933: 11957: 11960: 119292026peak 1929 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Amanda Holt and Alyce P. Woods v. Marjorie K. King and Myrtle Perkins250 F.2d 671 (10th Cir. 1957)
  2. Thiessen v. Weber278 P. 770 (Kan. 1929)
  3. Pfannenstiel v. Central Kansas Power Co.352 P.2d 51 (Kan. 1960)
  4. Sinclair v. Missouri Pacific Railroad18 P.2d 195 (Kan. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Pfannenstiel v. Central Kansas Power Co.352 P.2d 51 (Kan. 1960)
  2. Amanda Holt and Alyce P. Woods v. Marjorie K. King and Myrtle Perkins250 F.2d 671 (10th Cir. 1957)
  3. Sinclair v. Missouri Pacific Railroad18 P.2d 195 (Kan. 1933)
  4. Thiessen v. Weber278 P. 770 (Kan. 1929)

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
Klingbeil v. Neubauer, 203 P. 731 (Kan. 1922) 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