KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov


 
   

 




58-2527. Attachment for nonpayment of rent; grounds; affidavit and bond. When any person who shall be liable to pay rent (whether the same be due or not, if it be due within one year thereafter, and whether the same be payable in money or other things) intends to remove, or is removing, or has within thirty days removed his or her property, or the crops, or any part thereof, from the leased premises, the person to whom the rent is owing may commence an action in the court having jurisdiction; and upon making an affidavit stating the amount of rent for which such person is liable, and one or more of the above facts, and executing an undertaking as in other cases, an attachment shall issue in the same manner and with the like effect as is provided by law in other actions.

History: G.S. 1868, ch. 55, ยง 27; October 31; R.S. 1923, 67-527.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Discussed in article on tenant farmers, H. W. Hannah, 7 K.L.R. 295, 304 (1959).

"Kansas's Unique Treatment of Agricultural Liens," Keith G. Meyer, 53 K.L.R. 1141 (2005).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Action not prematurely brought, although rent not due. Neifert v. Ames, 26 Kan. 515; Brown v. Cairns, 63 Kan. 584, 587, 66 P. 639.

2. Action maintainable where tenant removed crop from land. Tarpy v. Persing, 27 Kan. 745.

3. Removal of any part of crop is ground for attachment. Knowles v. Sell, 41 Kan. 171, 172, 21 P. 102.

4. Tenancy at will; when attachment for rent will lie. Betz v. Maxwell, 48 Kan. 142, 143, 29 P. 147.

5. Attachment will lie against purchaser of crop still on land; purchaser with notice takes subject to claim for rent. Scully v. Porter, 57 Kan. 322, 46 P. 313.

6. Distribution of proceeds of sale. Harmon v. Payton, 68 Kan. 67, 69, 74 P. 618.

7. Affidavit; property which may be taken under attachment. Eckhardt v. Taylor, 90 Kan. 698, 699, 136 P. 218.

8. Agreement providing tenant shall market crop; attachment improper. Coulson v. Hinton, 110 Kan. 653, 657, 205 P. 619.

9. Assignee of notes given for rent protected by statute. Pitts v. Milling Co., 117 Kan. 626, 628, 233 P. 114.

10. Liability for wrongful attachment considered. Burkhalter v. Matteson, 121 Kan. 281, 246 P. 673.

11. Statute does not apply to lease of city building for commercial purpose. Foltz v. Feld, 126 Kan. 534, 268 P. 854.

12. Feeding crops to cattle constitutes removal of crops justifying attachment. Johnson v. Beach, 146 Kan. 781, 782, 784, 73 P.2d 1040.


 



This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov