Baker v. John D. Maguire's, Inc.
| Citation | 176 Kan. 579,272 P.2d 739 |
| Decision Date | 06 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 39160,39160 |
| Parties | BAKER v. JOHN D. MAGUIRE'S, Inc. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a party appeals from a judgment rendered against him and not from the rulings on his motion for a new trial or other post trial motions, the rulings on such motions are not subject to appellate review.
Edward H. Powers, Kansas City, and James P. Quinn, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief, for appellant.
J. W. Mahoney, Kansas City, argued the cause, and David W. Carson, and John K. Dear, Kansas City, on the brief, for appellee.
This was an action in which plaintiff sought damages, actual and exemplary, resulting sulting from a wrongful garnishment of her wages.
In her petition the plaintiff alleged her employment by Armour and Company; that her wages had been garnished in an action commenced by defendant against her in a magistrate's court in Kansas City, Missouri; that she had never been indebted to the plaintiff in that action; and that she had suffered specified damages. She prayed for actual and exemplary damages. The defendant's answer consisted of a general denial.
A trial was had and the jury, under instructions to which no objection was made, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for actual and exemplary damages in specified amounts. Defendant then filed its motion that the verdict be set aside for the reason that portion assessing exemplary damages was not sustained by the evidence, and also its motion for a new trial. These motions were denied and judgment was rendered on the verdict and in favor of the plaintiff.
In due time defendant perfected its appeal to this court. Because of its importance here the notice is quoted in full:
'Take notice that the undersigned defendant does and has appealed from the judgment rendered and made in the above entitled action on the 28th day of March, 1953, wherein judgment in the sum of $1,000.00 and costs was entered in favor of the plaintiff named above, and against the defendant herein.'
Notwithstanding its very limited appeal, in its abstract appellant specifies as error that the trial court erred in: 1. Overruling its motion to set aside the verdict; 2. Overruling its motion for a new trial; and 3. Instructing the jury as to actual damages.
It is observed that although two post trial motions were filed, actually the matter contained in the motion to vacate a part of the verdict ass not sustained by the evidence states a ground for a new trial, see G.S.1949, 60-3001, Fourth, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholas v. Latham
...on motions or demurrers, not included in the notice of appeal, are not subject to appellate review. In Baker v. John D. Maguire's, Inc., 176 Kan. 579, 580, 272 P.2d 739, 740, the court said: 'We are confronted with complaints on rulings as to matters which were the grounds for a motion for ......
-
Ford v. Sewell
...184 Kan. 525, 337 P.2d 657, and has carefully adhered to the rule as announced in the McCarty case, supra. See, also, Baker v. Maguire's, Inc., 176 Kan. 579, 272 P.2d 739; State, ex rel., Fatzer v. Miller, 177 Kan. 324, 279 P.2d 223, 52 A.L.R.2d 691; McIntyre v. Dickinson, 180 Kan. 710, 307......
-
Curtis v. Kansas Bostwick Irr. Dist. No. 2
...to review trial errors in the judgment. Salt City B. L. & S. Ass'n v. Peterson, 145 Kan. 765, 67 P.2d 564; In re Estate of Young, 169 Maguire's Inc., 176 Kan. 579, v. John D. Maguire's, Inc., 176 Kan. 579, 272 P.2d 739; Nicholas v. Latham, 179 Kan. 348, 295 P.2d 631; McIntyre v. Dickinson, ......
-
Stephenson v. Wallis
...(Frazier v. Royal Life & Cas. Ass'n, 158 Kan. 533, 148 P.2d 503; Kerby v. Hiesterman, 162 Kan. 490, 178 P.2d 194; Baker v. John D. Maguire's, Inc., 176 Kan. 579, 272 P.2d 739; Bishop v. Huffman, 177 Kan. 256, 278 P.2d The instruction was not erroneous as a matter of law and within the excep......