Plummer v. Ash

Citations

• 90 Kan. 40
• 133 P. 157
• 1913 Kan. LEXIS 156

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Motion — For Nunc pro Tunc Order — May be Made by Party in Interest. A grantee of a party in whose favor the title to land has been adjudicated may maintain a motion in his own name to have the judgment entered nunc pro tunc if an .entry of the judgment has not been made.</p> <p>2. Quieting Title — Publication Service — Appearance by Attorney — Judgment Final. Where the court obtains jurisdiction by constructive service in an action to quiet title, and an answer is filed for a nonresident defendant, and the issue of title is tried without objection and judgment rendered against the plaintiff, he can not defeat a motion for an entry of the judgment nunc pro tunc, made five years afterwards, by merely showing that the defendant did not authorize the appearance of the attorney.</p> <p>3. Quieting Title — Unauthorized Appearance of Attorney May he Ratified. The defendant after learning that an appearance had been made for her without her knowledge or consent might have ratified it and thereby would have been entitled to all its benefits although she had not authorized it. Her grantee may also ratify it so far as necessary to protect his interest in the land conveyed to him and affected by the judgment, in the absence of any previous repudiation by her of the unauthorized appearance.</p>