Bridge v. Main St. Hotel Co.

• Decision Date: 07 July 1900
• Citation: 61 P. 754,62 Kan. 866
• Parties: BRIDGE v. MAIN ST. HOTEL CO. et al.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

61 P. 754

62 Kan. 866

BRIDGE v. MAIN ST. HOTEL CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 7, 1900

Error from district court, Brown county; William I. Stuart, Judge.

Action by A. Alice Bridge against the Main Street Hotel Company and others for the recovery of a money judgment, and the foreclosure of a mortgage. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, subordinating her claim to the lien of the Horton Hardware Company, and she brought error. Defendants in error move to dismiss. Motion sustained.

Flansburg & Williams and Jas. Falloon, for plaintiff in error.

Jas A. Clark, John, Rusk & Stringfellow, S. L. Ryan, C. W. Ryan and C. W. Reeder, for defendants in error.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was one for the recovery of a money judgment and the foreclosure of a mortgage. The judgment of the court below gave the plaintiff, A. Alice Bridge, a mortgage lien upon the premises second and subordinate to the lien of a partnership firm composed of Walter H. Steele and John Dean, doing business under the name of the Horton Hardware Company. The final judgment settling the priorities of the liens was rendered December 28, 1898. The case comes to us upon a transcript of the record. This record was not filed here until December 26, 1899, or within two days of the final limit for the commencement of proceedings in error. Intermediate the final judgment and the filing of proceedings in error in this court, to wit, February 11, 1899, Walter H Steele, one of the partners in the Horton Hardware Company above named, died, and his widow, Mollie Steele, was appointed administratrix of his estate. Proceedings to revive the judgment in the name of the administratrix were seasonably begun, but, because of the disqualification of the judge before whom the motion for revivor was presented to hear such motion and make the necessary order (he having formerly been of counsel in the case), the revivor order was not made until November 6, 1899. It was then made by a judge pro tem. The order of revivor was not incorporated in the transcript of the record filed in this court. April 18, 1900, counsel for plaintiff in error filed in this court a motion to be allowed to amend and complete the transcript of the record by adding to it the revivor proceedings in the court below, and in connection therewith they made a showing of reasons for failure to file it in connection with the remainder of the record which would have been sufficient to justify us in...