Arnold v. Barner
Citations
- 100 Kan. 36
- 163 P. 805
- 1917 Kan. LEXIS 253
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Abstract op Title — Extending Abstract — Liability of Abstracter. “Ordinarily an abstracter who is employed to bring up to date an abstract previously made is only expected and required to examine and certify as to matters which have been brought on the records during the intervening period, and in such event his liability would be limited to such errors as were made in the extension of the abstract.” (Arnold & Co. v. Burner, 91 Kan. 768, 772, 139 Pac. 404.)</p> <p>2. Same. When an abstract of title to real estate is presented to an abstracter to be brought down to date and he enters therein such matters as are of record affecting the title since the date of the last abstracter’s certificate, or verifies the fact that the public records do not disclose any change in the status of the title, and he appends to the abstract the recital: “Posted from February 9, 1909, to April 22, 1909,” or the like, followed by his name and official title, such recital is a certificate guaranteeing that the abstract contains all the necessary entries to show any changes in the title between the dates mentioned in the recital, but it does not mean that he verifies or re-certifies the accuracy of earlier entries in the abstract prior to those dates.</p> <p>3. Same: — “Posting” of an Abstract. The posting of an abstract between certain dates is the process of transferring to it such data shown by the public records as may affect the title to the property between those dates.</p> <p>4. Same — Errors in Abstract — Limitation of Actions. When a cause of action is in fact barred by the statute of limitations, but the allegations of the petition are so broad that they can not be met by demurrer, the defendant may enter a general denial, and may then await a failure of proof which will strip the cause of action down to the bare facts where the pertinency of the statute of limitations will become apparent, and may then interpose a demurrer to the evidence.</p>
Judges: Dawson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Continental Oil Co.Arizona Supreme Court· 1934-03-05· cited 22×
- Slaton v. Union Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1944-02-01· cited 14×
- Atwood Mercantile Co. v. RooneySupreme Court of Kansas· 1923-12-08· cited 11×
- Burger v. First National BankSupreme Court of Kansas· 1927-07-09· cited 11×
- Pease v. SnyderSupreme Court of Kansas· 1952-01-26· cited 3×
- Bank Savings Life Insurance v. GannSupreme Court of Kansas· 1926-01-09
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.