¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by
¶2
¶3*238
7 Kan. 235
Decided January 15, 1871
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1871-01-15
Error from Riley District Court. Crowther sued Elliott, and alleged in his petition that on the 27th of June, 1868, the parties entered into a written contract, in and by which plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant all plaintiff’s interest in the “ Kansas Radical,r newspaper establishment, for $100, payment to be made and possession given on the 8th of August following y. also, a stock of paper and ink, for $64.71, to be paid' at same time; that until said August 8th,…
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““Does the petition state a cause of action? We think it does, very awkwardly and inartistically, certainly, but we cannot be mistaken in the fact that the defendant was- made aware of just what the plaintiff complained of, and the relief he sought. ‘The court must tolerate modes of statement unsuited to orderly arrangement; the use of words unaptly applied; involved sentences, lacking simplicity and logical accuracy,’ if, from the whole petition, the nature of the charge can be ascertained. We find no difficulty in doing so in this case. The contract is made a part of the petition, and is not difficult of construction. The plaintiff says he has duly performed all the conditions imposed upon him by the contract, and specifies wherein the defendant has broken his. ‘In the construction of any pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations shall be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.’ ””
quoted by 1 later decision, including Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. Bartlett
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1871-01-15
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1933
5 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 →
¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by
¶2
¶3*238