Cogshall v. Spurry

Decision Date05 December 1891
PartiesW. H. COGSHALL et al. v. S. W. SPURRY
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Error from Crawford District Court.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

W. R Cowley, for plaintiffs in error.

John T Voss, for defendant in error.

VALENTINE J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.:

The assignments of error in this case are as follows:

"1. The said court erred in the instructions given to the jury on the trial of the said action.

"2. The court erred in admitting evidence in the trial of said action.

"3. The verdict was contrary to the evidence.

"4. The said judgment was given for the said S.W. Spurry when it ought to have been given for these plaintiffs."

It will be seen that nothing is said in the assignments of error with regard to a motion for a new trial. There was a motion for a new trial, however, made and filed in the court below on April 7, 1888, and overruled on April 20, 1888. The grounds for the motion are as follows:

"1. The verdict is contrary to and against the evidence.

"2. The verdict is contrary to and against the law.

"3. Error upon the part of the court in the admission of testimony, to which the plaintiff excepted at the time."

Nothing is said in this motion with respect to the instructions of the court to the jury. Instructions, however, were given; and while we have 17 pages of them in the record, yet the record does not show that it contains all. On the same day on which the motion for the new trial was overruled, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, S.W. Spurry, and against the plaintiffs, W. H. Cogshall and George W. Pye, partners as W. H. Cogshall & Co., for costs of suit; and on April 16, 1889, the plaintiffs, as plaintiffs in error, brought the case to this court for review.

On October 8, 1891, the plaintiffs in error asked leave of this court to amend their petition in error so as to make it allege for error the overruling of their motion for a new trial, but the court overruled the motion, and then the case was submitted to the court for final decision upon its merits upon the petition in error as it was and the record and the briefs of counsel. The motion of the plaintiffs in error for leave to amend their petition in error was overruled upon the ground that it was made too late. Under the statutes of this state, (Civil Code, § 556,) no proceeding in error can be commenced in the supreme court unless it is commenced within one year after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order complained of, except where the plaintiff in error is an infant, or of unsound mind, or imprisoned. The motion to amend in the present case was not made until more than three years had elapsed after the ruling of the court below complained of had occurred. Of course a petition in error may be amended more than one year after the ruling complained of has taken place, if the amendment is only to make good a defective, informal or incomplete allegation of error already contained in the petition in error; but when the proposed amendment sets forth an absolutely new and distinct assignment of error or cause for reversal, it cannot be made after that time. Such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1921
    ... ... proceedings, and under similar code provisions, the following ... cases to the same effect: Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 ... Kan. 448, 28 P. 154; Bruner v. Nordmier 48 Okla. 415 ... 150 P. 159; Haynes v. Smith 29 Okla. 703, 119 P ... The ... ...
  • Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee, Wis. v. Averill
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1935
    ...the time allowed for bringing error proceedings, and under similar Code provisions, the following cases to the same effect; Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 Kan. 448, 28 P. 154; Bruner v. Nordmeyer, 48 Okl. 415, 150 P. 159; v. Smith, 29 Okl. 703, 119 P. 246." These two are the only decisions, apart f......
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1908
    ...(Neb.), 97 N.W. 831; Deuch v. Seaside Lodge, 26 Ore. 385; 2 Ency Pl. & Pr., 239-245; Crawford v. Kansas City, 45 Kan. 474; Cogshall v. Sperry, 47 Kan. 448; 28 P. 154; Nowland v. Horace, 8 Kan.App. 722; 54 P. Brewer v. Moyer (Kan.), 84 P. 719; Smetters v. Ramey, 14 Ohio St. 287; Burke v. Tay......
  • The Coffeyville Gas Company v. Dooley
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1906
    ...19 P. 626; Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 P. 327; Binns v. Adams, 54 Kan. 615, 38 P. 792; Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 Kan. 448, 28 P. 154; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129, 23 109.) The errors assigned raise questions arising upon the trial and cannot be co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT