Repealed

61-601. History: G.S. 1868, ch. 81, § 71; R.S. 1923, 61-601; Repealed, L. 1969, ch. 290, § 61-2606; January 1, 1970. Source or prior law: Terr. L. 1858, ch. 42, § 54; Terr. L. 1859, ch. 87, § 53. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Statement in open court considered as pleading of party. Ferguson v. Prince, 2 Kan. App. 7, 41 P. 988. 2. Bill of particulars held not to sustain amount of judgment. National Bank v. Bannister, 7 Kan. App. 787, 789, 54 P. 20. 3. Bills of particulars substitute for petition and answer; construction. Wooster v. McKinley, 1 Kan. 317. 4. Filing of note with endorsement held sufficient bill of particulars. Brenner v. Weaver, 1 Kan. 488. 5. This section prescribes when bill of particulars is required. German v. Ritchie, 9 Kan. 106, 111. 6. Facts stated in general way, sufficient if defendant not misled. Lobenstein v. McGraw, 11 Kan. 645; M. Kan. & T. Rly. Co. v. Brown, 14 Kan. 557. 7. Whether answer necessary in a given case considered. Donnel v. Clark, 12 Kan. 154, 160. 8. Case tried on appeal the same as in justice court. Sanford v. Shepard, 14 Kan. 228, 231. 9. Controversy concerning filing of bill of particulars by defendant considered. Smith v. Burkhalter, 14 Kan. 352, 354. 10. Lack of allegation of time when work was done not fatal. Mugan v. Haley, 16 Kan. 68. 11. Technical precision not required; when objection must be raised. Kan. P. Rly. Co. v. Taylor, 17 Kan. 566. 12. Allegation of negligence on part of defendant held unnecessary. Central Branch Rld. Co. v. Phillipi, 20 Kan. 9. 13. Sufficiency of bill of particulars in damage case considered. Central Branch Rld. Co. v. Phillipi, 20 Kan. 9. 14. Bill of particulars in form of running account sufficient. Bancroft v. Atyeo, 22 Kan. 32. 15. Formal prayer for relief not required in bill of particulars. Gas Co. v. Schliefer, 22 Kan. 468. 16. Bill of particulars under stock law must show venue. St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Byron, 24 Kan. 350. 17. Defendant may, without filing pleadings, unless required, prove any defense. Wagstaff v. Challiss, 29 Kan. 505, 506. 18. When defendant required to file bill of particulars considered. Cole v. Hoeburg, 36 Kan. 263, 270, 13 P. 275. 19. When judgment may be rendered by default; procedure considered. Cole v. Hoeburg, 36 Kan. 263, 270, 13 P. 275. 20. When introduction of incompetent evidence will require reversal of judgment. Rohlfing v. Lightbody, 36 Kan. 500, 502, 13 P. 836. 21. Requirement that evidence be confined to bill of particulars considered. Rohlfing v. Lightbody, 36 Kan. 500, 502, 13 P. 836. 22. Sufficiency of bill of particulars for medical services considered. Underwood v. Scott, 43 Kan. 714, 23 P. 942. 23. Bill of particulars sufficient if nature of demand shown. Pate v. Fitzhugh, 46 Kan. 129, 26 P. 452. 24. Strictness with which bill of particulars construed considered. Pate v. Fitzhugh, 46 Kan. 129, 26 P. 452. 25. Admission or exclusion of evidence; reversal of judgment considered. Pate v. Fitzhugh, 46 Kan. 129, 26 P. 452. 26. Bill of particulars held to state cause of action. Griffin v. O'Neil, 47 Kan. 116, 27 P. 826. 27. Demurrer to evidence held properly overruled. Griffin v. O'Neil, 47 Kan. 116, 27 P. 826. 28. Failure to construct cattle guards; bill of particulars held sufficient. C. Kan. & N. Rly. Co. v. Behney, 48 Kan. 47, 28 P. 980. 29. Technical precision not required in bill of particulars. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Henning, 48 Kan. 465, 29 P. 597. 30. Section refers to commencement of action for recovery of money. Burdsal v. Shields, 71 Kan. 95, 96, 79 P. 1067. 31. Objection to evidence held erroneously sustained under facts stated. Olsson v. Lawrence Township, 93 Kan. 440, 144 P. 997. 32. Plain statement of facts in simple language of layman sufficient. Hart v. Haynes, 96 Kan. 262, 264, 150 P. 530. 33. Action for commission; sufficiency of bill of particulars considered. Brady v. Creamery & Supply Co., 97 Kan. 13, 154 P. 220. 34. Motion to make more definite and certain held properly overruled. Todd v. Produce Co., 98 Kan. 137, 157 P. 389. 35. Defendant may be required to file answer on appeal. Longren v. Railway Co., 99 Kan. 757, 163 P. 183. 36. Entire bill of particulars rather than prayer governs. McDermott v. Sterling, 133 Kan. 521, 522, 1 P.2d 78. 37. Judgment not conforming to pleading and proof may be enjoined. Southern Kan. Stage Lines v. Webb, 141 Kan. 476, 479, 41 P.2d 1025. 38. Mentioned; question as to whether notice of appeal constituted pleadings raised but not determined. Applehans v. Beever, 189 Kan. 667, 671, 371 P.2d 127. 39. Code of civil procedure inapplicable to justice courts whose function is to try issues and enter judgment; authorized pleadings limited. Gotheridge v. Bethurum, 190 Kan. 390, 393, 375 P.2d 605. 40. Demurrers or motions not proper pleadings in county court; pleadings authorized stated. Gotheridge v. Bethurum, 190 Kan. 390, 392, 375 P.2d 605. Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026