22 Kan. 81 | Kan. | 1879
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff in error insists, first, that the trial court erred in refusing a new trial; and second, in denying his motion for judgment on the findings, and ren
The reported cases which hold that an action will lie for such installments of purchase-money to be paid in advance of the conveyance, are numerous. In these cases it is no de
This conclusion is also in accordance with the previous decisions of this court, so far at least as any expression has been given to the construction of the contracts between vendor and vendee. (Courtney v. Woodworth, 9 Kas. 443.)
The judgment of the district court must be affirmed.