case out rule in Kansas

1974Defendant cites the case of McCullough v. Bales, 125 Kan. 670 , 265 Pac. 1110 , in support of his position and argues that the language foimd by the jury to have been used in the instant case leaves the case under the rule which he claims to have been established in McCullough and takes the case out of the rule of Naaf v. Griffitts, 201 Kan. 64 , 439 P. 2d 83 , upon which plaintiffs rely.

1974Defendant cites the case of McCullough v. Bales, 125 Kan. 670 , 265 Pac. 1110 , in support of his position and argues that the language foimd by the jury to have been used in the instant case leaves the case under the rule which he claims to have been established in McCullough and takes the case out of the rule of Naaf v. Griffitts, 201 Kan. 64 , 439 P. 2d 83 , upon which plaintiffs rely.

1946We see nothing in these pleadings that takes this case out of the rule announced in Estey v. Holdren, 126 Kan. 385 , 267 Pac. 1090 .

1946We see nothing in these pleadings that takes this case out of the rule announced in Estey v. Holdren, 126 Kan. 385 , 267 Pac. 1090 .

1941Furthermore, if we should hold that the defendant had not ac quiesced in the order allowing the new trial we see nothing sufficient in this record to take this case out of the rule announced in Claggett v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 146 Kan. 846 , 73 P. 2d 1015 .

1941Furthermore, if we should hold that the defendant had not ac quiesced in the order allowing the new trial we see nothing sufficient in this record to take this case out of the rule announced in Claggett v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 146 Kan. 846 , 73 P. 2d 1015 .

1938The case of Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Middlekamp, 1 F. 2d 563 , was cited and held the imposition of $25 franchise tax on corporations with no par value stock, but requiring other corporations to pay tax based on outstanding capital stock and surplus, was in violation of the equal-protection clause.

1928(Johnson v. Husband, 22 Kan. 277, 283 ; Werner v. Edmiston, 24 Kan. 147, 150; Ottawa v. Gilliland, 63 Kan. 165, 166 , 65 Pac. 252 .) “In the case at bar there was no previous agreement to make the quotient the verdict.

1928(Johnson v. Husband, 22 Kan. 277, 283 ; Werner v. Edmiston, 24 Kan. 147, 150; Ottawa v. Gilliland, 63 Kan. 165, 166 , 65 Pac. 252 .) “In the case at bar there was no previous agreement to make the quotient the verdict.

1928(Johnson v. Husband, 22 Kan. 277, 283 ; Werner v. Edmiston, 24 Kan. 147, 150; Ottawa v. Gilliland, 63 Kan. 165, 166 , 65 Pac. 252 .) “In the case at bar there was no previous agreement to make the quotient the verdict.

1928That takes this case out of the rule declared in Werner v. Edmiston, 24 Kan. 147 , cited by the defendant, and places it under the rule found in Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353, 357 , 148 Pac. 648 , where this court said: “It has been held that a verdict obtained by marking the amount each juror thinks the amount of the verdict should be, adding these amounts together and dividing the sum by twelve, under an agreement that the quotient shall be the verdict, should be set aside and a new trial granted.

1928That takes this case out of the rule declared in Werner v. Edmiston, 24 Kan. 147 , cited by the defendant, and places it under the rule found in Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353, 357 , 148 Pac. 648 , where this court said: “It has been held that a verdict obtained by marking the amount each juror thinks the amount of the verdict should be, adding these amounts together and dividing the sum by twelve, under an agreement that the quotient shall be the verdict, should be set aside and a new trial granted.

1922There is nothing to take this case out of the rule declared in Mortgage Trust Co. v. Bank Commissioner, 110 Kan. 786 , 205 Pac. 610 .

1922There is nothing to take this case out of the rule declared in Mortgage Trust Co. v. Bank Commissioner, 110 Kan. 786 , 205 Pac. 610 .

1915We find nothing in either by-law 12 or 26 which, in our opinion, takes the case out of the rule declared in Miller v. National Council, 69 Kan. 234 , 76 Pac. 830 .

1915We find nothing in either by-law 12 or 26 which, in our opinion, takes the case out of the rule declared in Miller v. National Council, 69 Kan. 234 , 76 Pac. 830 .

1915For that reason the former decision ( 93 Kan. 398 ) must be overruled and the judgment of the district court affirmed.

1896No certificate appears in this record to take the case out of the rule laid down in Clark v. City of Ottawa, 1 Kan.

1891And land held as a homestead is, with respect to such obligations, governed by just the same rules as if it were not a homestead.” (Nichols v. Overacker, 16 Kas. 54 .) No brief has been furnished us upon the part of the defendant in error; hence we have no means of knowing what claim was made in the district court by the plaintiff below that would take this case out of the rule heretofore established by this court in the case already cited.

1881This dependent and incidental relation is the controlling consideration, and takes the case out of the rule applied to choses in action where no such relation of dependence exists.” Counsel for defendants say, that conceding the correctness of the general doctrine laid down in Carpenter v. Longan, supra, yet, the adoption of §3, ch. 68, Comp.