Baker v. Craig
Decision Date | 10 January 1925 |
Docket Number | 25,606 |
Citation | 232 P. 248,117 Kan. 491 |
Parties | HARPER BAKER, Appellee, v. J. W. CRAIG et al., Appellants |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1925
Appeal from Butler district court, division No. 1; ALLISON T. AYRES judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
JURISDICTION--Reference--Power of District Court Over Reports of Referee at One and the Same Term. At one and the same term of court a district court may approve or modify a report of a referee, may rerefer the matter, and upon a second report being filed may again refer the matter to the referee.
E. W. Grant, of El Dorado, George Gardner, and Warren Wattles, both of Wichita, for the appellants.
N. A. Yeager, R. A. Cox, both of Augusta, T. C. Forbes, and F. S. Jackson, both of Topeka, for the appellee.
The defendants appeal from the following order made on the hearing of a motion for a new trial:
The plaintiff sued to recover $ 18,714.50 on account of work which he performed for the defendant in drilling oil and gas wells in Butler county. A referee was appointed to take the testimony and report findings of fact and conclusions of law. Testimony was taken and findings of fact and conclusions of law were reported by the referee. On a motion to confirm the report, it was ordered by the court and agreed to by the attorneys for the parties that the matter of passing on the motion to confirm the referee's report be considered at a future date to be agreed upon, and be passed on by the referee, whose ruling on the motion should be of the same validity and effect as though made by the court. Later the referee modified his findings and made an additional report and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Within three days thereafter a motion for a new trial was filed by the plaintiff. On that motion the order appealed from was made.
To show the dates on which these several things occurred we quote from the appellants' brief:
The order appealed from was made on October 17, 1923.
The defendants argue that the plaintiff should have moved for a new trial within three days after the first report of the referee was filed, which was on June 27, 1923. If that had been the final and only report made by the referee the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bowser
...Among many cases see: Eckl v. Brennan, 150 Kan. 502, 506, 95 P.2d 535; Burnham v. Burnham, 120 Kan. 90, 93, 242 P. 124; Baker v. Craig, 117 Kan. 491, 493, 232 P. 248; State v. Luft, 104 Kan. 353, 358, 179 P. Missouri Pac. Railway Company v. Berry, 79 Kan. 19, 98 P. 204. In State v. Luft, 10......
-
Johnson v. Owens
... ... (Kelley v. Schreiber, 82 ... Kan. 403, 405, 108 P. 816; Sims v. Construction Co., ... 111 Kan. 179, 181, 206 P. 878; Baker v. Craig et ... al., 117 Kan. 491, 232 P. 248.) ... Appellant ... contends that the referee, Kline, went outside of the scope ... of the ... ...