Rice v. Hovey, 40072
| Decision Date | 30 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 40072,40072 |
| Citation | 299 P.2d 45,180 Kan. 38 |
| Parties | Frank L. RICE and Nettle E. Rice, his wife, Appellees, v. William H. HOVEY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Rule No. 5 of the Supreme Court requires that the abstract of the appellant shall include a specification of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered.
2. Appellants' failure to comply with Rule No. 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 174 Kan. XI; G.S.1949, 60-3826, by including in their abstract of record an abstract of the pleadings and of the evidence to enable this court to arrive at a full understanding of the questions involved and their failure to include a specification of errors complained of separately set forth and numbered, is fatal, and following Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 244 P.2d 1213 and Quick v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d 626, the appeal is dismissed.
William L. Lemesany, Lawrence, was on the briefs for intervenors Mrs. L. H. Menger, Mrs. W. O. Nelson and Mrs. V. P. Wilson.
Forrest A. Jackson, Lawrence, was on the briefs for appellees Frank L. Rice and Nettie E. Rice.
Charles D. Stough, Lawrence, was on the briefs for appellee Lawrence Woman's Club.
This was an action to quiet title to real estate previously conveyed to plaintiffs by the Lawrence Woman's Club, Lawrence, Kansas. The trial court permitted certain of the group's members to intervene, who filed an answer. The trial court quieted title in plaintiffs, and the intervenors have appealed.
The abstract of appellants does not contain an abstract of the pleadings, nor even a resume of them; neither is the evidence abstracted, nor is reference made to the pages of the stenographer's transcript, nor is there any specification of errors complained of as required by Rule No. 5 of this court. At most, appellants have a nine-page statement of facts and nothing more.
Under Dupont v. Lotus Oil Co., 168 Kan. 544, 213 P.2d 975; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 244 P.2d 1213; Gilley v. Gilley, 176 Kan. 61, 268 P.2d 938; and, Quick v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d 626 and cases cited, where appellant makes no attempt to comply with Rule No. 5, his appeal is subject to dismissal.
Error is never presumed and it is the duty of the party complaining to indicate wherein it was committed. This court cannot review error, which is claimed was committed, if none is specified. Quick v. Purcell, supra.
In Miller v. Rath, supra, it was held:
'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. Hand
...5, appellate review is precluded and his appeal will be dismissed (Quick, Receiver v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d 626; Rice v. Hovey, 180 Kan. 38, 299 P.2d 45; Blevins v. Daugherty, 187 Kan. 257, 259, 356 P.2d 852; Lemon v. Pauls, 189 Kan. 314, 369 P.2d Notwithstanding the petitioner fa......
-
Jeffers v. Jeffers
...subject to appellate review (Quick v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d 626; Nicholas v. Latham, 179 Kan. 348, 295 P.2d 631; Rice v. Hovey, 180 Kan. 38, 299 P.2d 45). Error is never presumed (Quivira, Inc., v. Quivira Co., Inc., 173 Kan. 339, 245 P.2d 972; Elliott v. P. H. Albright Farm Loan ......
-
Blevins v. Daugherty, 41888
...A comparatively recent pronouncement on the subject, under somewhat similar facts and circumstances, is to be found in Rice v. Hovey, 180 Kan. 38, 299 P.2d 45, where it is 'Rule No. 5 of the Supreme Court requires that the abstract of the appellant shall include a specification of the error......
-
Fangrow v. Fangrow, 41357
...committed (Quivira, Inc. v. Quivira Co. Inc., 173 Kan. 339, 245 P.2d 972; Quick v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d 626; Rice v. Hovey, 180 Kan. 38, 39, 299 P.2d 45). Since plaintiff has not made it to affirmatively appear that the district court erred in quashing the execution and setting a......