119 Kan. 348 | Kan. | 1925
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal by defendant from an order overruling his demurrer to plaintiff’s petition. The petition avers that plaintiff and the defendant and John E., Charles L. and Jesse L. Overlander were the owners in fee of certain farm land in Doniphan
In a second cause of action plaintiff averred that defendant was negligent in caring for and marketing the landlord’s portion of the crop from the land for certain years, to plaintiff’s damage in a stated sum. It is further averred the defendant claims to have made expenditures for improvements on'the premises and to have paid taxes on the land in behalf of plaintiff, that plaintiff has asked for an accounting, which defendant has refused. The prayer is for an accounting and the sum alleged due plaintiff.
To this petition defendant demurred, for the reasons: First, that there is another action pending between the parties concerning the same subject matter in the supreme court of the state of New York, New York county, in which the issues have been joined. Second, that the court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter, for the reason that upon the face of the petition recovery is sought of plaintiff as trustee rising from the sale of personalty, and nowhere does it appear that the fund is within the state of Kansas, or plaintiff’s inability to follow the fund, if elsewhere, or where the money constituting the trust fund may be found. Third, for misjoinder of cause of action in that defendant is charged, in a representative capacity, with the duties of administrator of the estate of Rufus B. Overlander, deceased, as agent of the administrator, individually, in his own personal right, and as trustee of the fund claimed by plaintiff. It is further contended that the respective causes of action do not contain a sufficient statement of facts to constitute a cause of action.
As to the first ground of demurrer, there is nothing in the petition filed by plaintiff to indicate that there is another action pending anywhere between these parties involving the subject matter, hence the demurrer on that point is not good. The second and third grounds of demurrer are not good for the reason that there is nothing in- the petition to show that defendant is being sued otherwise than in his .individual capacity for moneys received while repre
The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.