Broadie v. Carson

Citations

• 81 Kan. 467
• 106 P. 294
• 1910 Kan. LEXIS 374

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. School Land • — ■ Forfeiture ■ — ■ Evidence. The return made by the sheriff upon a notice of a proposed forfeiture of a school-land contract was incomplete and insufficient, but under -the provisions of chapter 373 of the Laws of 1907 proof was received that the words “Cancelled, December 23, 1895,” were written across the record of the school-land sale and parol proof was admitted showing that legal service of the notice had been actually made. Held, that the proof was properly received and that it was sufficient to show a valid forfeiture.</p> <p>2. - Second Purchaser Not Required to Pay Original Purchaser Amount Expended. One who purchases forfeited school land and brings his action to quiet his title as against those holding under the original purchaser is not required by any rule of equity to pay to the original purchaser or his assignee the amount paid to the state by him upon the original purchase.</p> <p>3. Evidence — Trial to the Court — Presumption on Review. In a case tried before the court, where incompetent testimony is tentatively received subject to reconsideration when the case is finally decided, the presumption must be that the court ignored all evidence to the 'introduction of which objections should have been sustained.</p>