case is within principle in Kansas

1899Such jurisdiction can be shown by making the record show that the amount or value of the controversy exceeds $100, or by incorporating therein a certificate of the district judge showing that the case is within the exception of such statute.” This court held, in the case of Clark v. City of Ottawa, 1 Kan.

1897This court has héretofore held : ‘ ‘ When the record shows that the amount or value in controversy is less than one hundred dollars, there must be incorporated in the record a certificate of the district judge showing that the case is within the exception of the statute, and a mere statement to that effect, signed by the judge and affixed to but forming no part of the record, confers nó jurisdiction upon this court.” Clark v. City of Ottawa, 1 Kan.

1934Gas & Electric Co. v. Creighton, 183 Fed. 552 .

1927In that aspect we think the case is within the principle of Bank v. Bank, 106 Kan. 303 , 187 Pac. 697 , and 111 Kan. 682 , 208 Pac. 636 .

1927In that aspect we think the case is within the principle of Bank v. Bank, 106 Kan. 303 , 187 Pac. 697 , and 111 Kan. 682 , 208 Pac. 636 .

1927In that aspect we think the case is within the principle of Bank v. Bank, 106 Kan. 303 , 187 Pac. 697 , and 111 Kan. 682 , 208 Pac. 636 .

1927In that aspect we think the case is within the principle of Bank v. Bank, 106 Kan. 303 , 187 Pac. 697 , and 111 Kan. 682 , 208 Pac. 636 .

1916This case is within the rule announced in Railway Co. v. Goodholm, 61 Kan. 758 , 60 Pac. 1066 .

1916This case is within the rule announced in Railway Co. v. Goodholm, 61 Kan. 758 , 60 Pac. 1066 .

1915(Else v. Freeman, 72 Kan. 666 , 83 Pac. 409 ; 20 Cyc. 49.) The defendant, however, among other matters, some of which were of a similar character, alleged that false statements were made to him concerning the kind of water rights appurtenant to lands owned by the corporation.

1915(Else v. Freeman, 72 Kan. 666 , 83 Pac. 409 ; 20 Cyc. 49.) The defendant, however, among other matters, some of which were of a similar character, alleged that false statements were made to him concerning the kind of water rights appurtenant to lands owned by the corporation.

1913The remainder of the oral negotiations did not create a new contract of sale supplanting the old, and in any event the defendants will not be allowed to agree upon a method of performance, induce the plaintiff to act accordingly, and then work a gross fraud by repudiating altogether.” (Painter v. Fletcher, 81 Kan. 195, 196 , 105 Pac. 500 .) “The furnishing of an abstract or other like condition may be waived; and when waived, as in this case, the appellant could only put appellee in default bjr a. performance or offer of performance on his own part.

1913The remainder of the oral negotiations did not create a new contract of sale supplanting the old, and in any event the defendants will not be allowed to agree upon a method of performance, induce the plaintiff to act accordingly, and then work a gross fraud by repudiating altogether.” (Painter v. Fletcher, 81 Kan. 195, 196 , 105 Pac. 500 .) “The furnishing of an abstract or other like condition may be waived; and when waived, as in this case, the appellant could only put appellee in default bjr a. performance or offer of performance on his own part.

1900The case is within the principle of Mitchell v. Sullivan, 30 Kan. 231 , 1 Pac. 518 .

1899App. 304 , 40 Pac. 1070 : “The record brought to this court must affirmatively show that the court has jurisdiction, or the case will be dismissed.

1899App. 750 , 50 Pac. 973 .) The amount involved in this case is less than $100, and there is not “incorporated therein (in the record) a certificate of the district judge showing that the case is within the exception of the statute.” Counsel contend that this certificate may be made at any time, and that the reviewing court may permit the required certificate to be made more than one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of.

1897The statute says: ‘No appeal or proceeding in error shall be had or taken to the Supreme Court in any civil action unless the amount or value in controversy, exclusive of costs, shall exceed one hundred dollars, except in cases specified therein, and then only upon a certificate of the trial judge showing that the case is within the exception provided in the statute.’ A fair construction of this language of our statute requires the party appealing to show that his case is within the statute,, either by making the record show the amount or value in controversy, or by including in the record a c

1897The statute says: ‘No appeal or proceeding in error shall be had or taken to the Supreme Court in any civil action unless the amount or value in controversy, exclusive of costs, shall exceed one hundred dollars, except in cases specified therein, and then only upon a certificate of the trial judge showing that the case is within the exception provided in the statute.’ A fair construction of this language of our statute requires the party appealing to show that his case is within the statute,, either by making the record show the amount or value in controversy, or by including in the record a c