From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boettcher v. Criscione

Supreme Court of Kansas
Jan 12, 1957
305 P.2d 1055 (Kan. 1957)

Opinion

Nos. 40,125, 40,126

Opinion on rehearing filed January 12, 1957.

OPINION ON REHEARING

Appeal from Reno district court; JOHN FONTRON, judge. Opinion on rehearing filed January 12, 1957. Original opinion adhered to as modified. (For original opinion of reversal, see Boettcher v. Criscione, 180 Kan. 39, 299 P.2d 806.)

Ora D. McClellan, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Gerald L. Michaud, Harry E. Robbins, Jr., Carol V. Creitz, and John B. Wooley, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.

Don Wyman and Roy C. Davis, both of Hutchinson, argued the cause and were on the briefs for the appellee.

Walter F. Jones, J. Richards Hunter, Harry H. Dunn, and William B. Swearer, all of Hutchinson, and Wendell L. Garlinghouse, of Topeka, were on the briefs amici curiae.


The opinion of the court was delivered by


This opinion is on rehearing in the above cases which were previously consolidated for review in this court. The opinion reversing the trial court's order sustaining a motion to strike certain portions of appellant's amended answers was filed on June 30, 1956. ( Boettcher v. Criscione, 180 Kan. 39, 299 P.2d 806.)

From the argument presented at the rehearing it was quite apparent that the parties misconstrued the court's opinion. All that was held in the opinion was that the allegations stricken from the answers if proved at the trial would constitute a defense and for that reason the trial court erred in striking such allegations. Anything said in the original syllabus or in the body of the opinion susceptible of any different construction is hereby disapproved.

We wish also to supplement the original opinion by adding that since the two contracts were executed at the same time, they must be considered together.

Paragraph 2 of the syllabus is hereby modified to read:

"Champerty and barratry have one thing in common in that each is contrary to the public policy of the state."

Further, we wish to withdraw paragraph 3 of the syllabus in its entirety.

With the above supplement, modification, and withdrawal the original syllabus and opinion are otherwise adhered to.

HALL, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Boettcher v. Criscione

Supreme Court of Kansas
Jan 12, 1957
305 P.2d 1055 (Kan. 1957)
Case details for

Boettcher v. Criscione

Case Details

Full title:EVELYN MERTZ BOETTCHER; EDWARD L. MERTZ; BETTY CLARK GRANDI; JEWELL CLARK…

Court:Supreme Court of Kansas

Date published: Jan 12, 1957

Citations

305 P.2d 1055 (Kan. 1957)
305 P.2d 1055

Citing Cases

Security Underground Storage v. Anderson

Golden Commissary Corp. v. Shipley, Munic.Ct. App., D.C., 157 A.2d 810; 14 Am.Jur.2d, Champerty Maintenance;…

IN RE YARN PROCESSING PATENT VALIDITY LIT

Assignment of the patent does not assign Mr. Irons along with it. The relationship between an attorney and…