City of Eureka v. Merrifield
Decision Date | 06 July 1894 |
Citation | 37 P. 113,53 Kan. 794 |
Parties | THE CITY OF EUREKA v. L. A. MERRIFIELD et al |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Greenwood District Court.
On the 26th of October, 1889, the city of Eureka filed its demurrer to the amended petition upon the following grounds:
At the January term for 1890, the demurrer came on for hearing, and after argument was overruled by the court. The city duly excepted. Subsequently an answer and reply were filed. The cause was tried before a court with a jury, at the May term for 1890. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and assessed the amount of their recovery at $ 1,000. Subsequently judgment was rendered thereon against the city of Eureka. The city excepted, and brings the case here.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Ira P. Nye, Kelley & Lamb, W. S. Marlin, and C. N. Sterry, for plaintiff in error.
A. M. Hunter, James Shultz, and Clogston & Fuller, for defendants in error.
OPINION
A preliminary question is presented. It is insisted that the case-made should be stricken from the files, because it was not attested by the district clerk of Greenwood county with the seal of the court, and indorsed as filed at the time the case was settled and signed. (Civil Code, § 548.) It appears from the record that service of the case was accepted by the attorneys of plaintiffs below on the 19th day of September, 1890; that at that time they signed the following indorsement or writing upon the case: "We have no amendments to suggest, and consent that the same be settled and signed." The case was settled and signed by the district judge on the 10th of October, 1890. In his certificate, he directed the case-made "be filed as a part of the record in said action." That implied that the case-made should be attested. It could not be properly filed as a part of the record unless attested with the signature of the clerk and the seal of the court. The case was complete and perfect when it was signed by the trial judge, and all that was necessary to make it evidence in this court was its attestation and authentication by the district clerk.
Appeals are favored, and mere technical objections which do not go to the merits of the case ought not to prevail, if a court, in its discretion, may, in the furtherance of justice, allow amendments to be made or omissions to be supplied. Upon an application made to this court by the plaintiff in. error, and a showing that the district clerk had failed to attest the case-made and indorse thereon the date of its filing, this court permitted the record to be withdrawn for the purpose of being properly attested and marked "filed" by the district clerk. It was returned attested, and marked as filed. Upon the showing, when application was made to this court to withdraw the record, it appeared that it was left with the district clerk for filing when it was settled and signed. It was not filed in this court until October 29, 1890. The mere omission of a district clerk to enter upon a paper or record left with him the date of its filing ought not to prejudice anyone. We think this court had full power, under the circumstances, to permit the attestation and filing by the clerk of the district court at any time before the case was heard or disposed of upon proceedings in error. (Pierce v. Myers, 28 Kan. 364.) The motion to strike out will be overruled.
Upon the merits of the case, the first question presented is, did the petition filed in the court below state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action in favor of L. A. and Mary E. Merrifield against the city of Eureka? Section 420 of the civil code, as construed with § 422 only permits actions to survive for injury to the person when death does not result from the injury but occurs from other causes. When death results from the injury, § 422 is exclusive. (McCarthy v. Railroad Co., 18 Kan. 46; Tiffany, Death by Wrongful Act, § 119.) Under § 422, the action for damages or loss by death from the wrongful act or omission must be commenced by the personal representative of the deceased. By § 1, chapter 131, Laws of 1889, it is provided, that where the residence of a party whose death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another is or has been at the time of his death in any other state or territory, or when, being a resident of the state, no personal representative is or has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leiker By and Through Leiker v. Gafford
...Rights was adopted. See Goodyear, Administratrix, v. Railway Co., 114 Kan. 557, 561-62, 220 Pac. 282 (1923); City of Eureka v. Merrifield, 53 Kan. 794, 798-99, 37 Pac. 113 (1894); McCarthy, Adm'r, v. Railroad Co., 18 Kan. 46, 48 (1877). The cause of action for wrongful death is purely a cre......
-
MacLaren v. Kramer
... ... ascertainable against them. As shown in Eureka v ... Merrifield, 53 Kan. 794, 37 P. 113, it is matter of ... substance, and not of form, and ... ...
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Lenahan
... ... West Jersey R. Co., 126 Pa. 206, 17 A. 597, ... 4 L. R. A. 261, 12 Am. St. Rep. 863; City of Eureka v ... Merrifield, 53 Kan. 794, 37 P. 113; Atchison Water ... Co. v. Price et ux., 9 ... ...
-
Gilkeson v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
...Hosea, 152 Ind. 412; Burnes v. Railroad, 113 Ind. 169; Railroad v. Goodykoontz, 119 Ind. 111; Martin v. Railroad, 58 Kan. 475; Eureka v. Merrifield, 53 Kan. 794; Cooper v. Elec. Co., 63 N. J. L. 558; Meekin Railroad, 164 N.Y. 145; Perham v. Portland Gen. Electric Co., 33 Ore. 451; Fink v. G......