¶1I concur in the syllabus of this case, and I believe I concur in the opinion; and if § 1, ch. 13, of the Compiled Laws of Kansas of 1879, so far as it relates to bonds for costs, can be held to be constitutional and valid, I would concur in a decision in favor of the plaintiff in error, that he was not properly brought into court, even if every question which might be raised in the case were raised and decided.- There has, however, been no claim made in this case tljat said §1, ch. 13, of the Compiled Laws of 1879, so far as it relates to cost bonds, is unconstitutional, or void. Such a claim was ,once made in this court, but the question has never been decided. (Potter v. Payne, 31 Kas. 218, et seq.) I do not how wish to , express any opinion with regard to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality, or the validity or invalidity, of any portion of said § 1, ch. 13, of the Compiled Laws of 1879.
32 Kan. 321
Bentz v. Eubanks
Decided July 15, 1884
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1884-07-15
M'ror from Jackson District Court. The opinion sufficiently states the nature of the action, and the facts. Trial and judgment for the plaintiff Phbamks, at the March Term, 1883, of the district court. The heirs at law of the defendant, A. W. Bentz, bring the case to this court.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1884-07-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1980
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →