Chaput v. Demars
120 Kan. 612
Kan.1926Check TreatmentThe opinion of the court was delivered by
In this action an opinion was filed February 6, 1926. (Chaput v. Demars, ante, p. 273.) The plaintiff has filed a motion for a rehearing in which lie urges that the sufficiency of the notice in respect to the description of real property was not determined by this court.
The notice was as follows:
“Notice to Trim Hedge.
“To Joseph Chaput:
“You are hereby notified to trim the hedge fence located on the land on west line of NE% section 15-7-2 to a height of five feet within thirty days, and if said hedge is not trimmed I will have the same cut and costs charged to you according to law and the provisions chapter 253, Laws of Kansas, 1919,. p. 348.
“Aug. 17-1923, (Signed) George Benoche, Road Overseer.”
The court takes judicial notice of the fact that all of Cloud county-lies west of the sixth principal meridian. The notice was sdfficient. to accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
The motion is denied.