Crawford v. Kansas City

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtJOHNSTON, J.:
Citation25 P. 865,45 Kan. 474
Decision Date07 February 1891
PartiesD. E. CRAWFORD et al. v. THE KANSAS CITY, FORT SCOTT & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY

25 P. 865

45 Kan. 474

D. E. CRAWFORD et al.
v.
THE KANSAS CITY, FORT SCOTT & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 7, 1891


Error from Linn District Court.

THE case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Blue & Rich, for plaintiffs in error.

Wallace Pratt, and Chas. W. Blair, for defendant in error.

JOHNSTON, J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

This action was brought by plaintiffs in error to recover damages for certain horses and colts alleged to have been killed through the negligence of the railroad company. After they had offered their testimony, a demurrer to the same was interposed by the railroad company, on the ground that the evidence offered did not prove a cause of action in their favor and against the company. The court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the company. After the rendition of the judgment, a motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and the plaintiffs then instituted this proceeding to secure a reversal, alleging three grounds of error: First, the exclusion of evidence; second, the sustaining of the demurrer to plaintiffs' evidence; and, third, the giving of judgment for defendants instead of plaintiffs; but the over-ruling of the motion for a new trial was not assigned for error.

[45 Kan. 475] At the submission of the case in this court, an application was made to amend the petition in error by adding a new assignment of error upon the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. The amendment was permitted to be filed, subject to such objections as defendant in error might make, the court reserving its decision on the effect of the amendment until the final disposition of the case.

It is contended that the testimony offered on the trial tended to sustain the cause of action alleged by plaintiffs, and that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer and taking the case from the jury. This ruling, like all others occurring on the trial, is not available on error, unless a motion for a new trial be made and filed within the time prescribed by law. (Gruble v. Ryus, 23 Kan. 195; Norris v. Evans, 39 id. 668.) Nor can any of the points or questions involved, and which were subject to review upon the motion for a new trial, be considered in this court, unless the overruling of that motion is assigned for error. ( Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 id. 72; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 id. 520; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 9, 1908
    ...Jarvis v. Chase County (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. 919; Brewer v. Moyer (Kan.), 84 P. 719; Smetters v. Rame......
  • Creek Realty Co. v. City of Muskogee, Case Number: 55005501
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 23, 1915
    ...but, in effect at least, the filing of a new case-made. Couse v. Phelps, 11 Kan. 455; Crawford v. Kansas City, F. S. & G. Ry. Co., 45 Kan. 474, 25 P. 865; Hall v. Houpt, 6 Kan. App. 921, 51 P. 918; Vanhorn v. Vanhorn, 74 Kan. 891, 88 P. 62. It proposes an amendment in order to confer ju......
  • Smith v. Bowersock, 19,371
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • April 10, 1915
    ...& Wilson Mfg. Co., 29 Kan. 476; Bates v. [95 Kan. 100] Lyman, 35 Kan. 634, 12 P. 33; Crawford v. K. C., Ft. S. & G. Rld. Co., 45 Kan. 474, 25 P. 865; Surety Co. v. Ashmore, 74 Kan. 325, 86 P. 453; Benefit Association v. Wood, 78 Kan. 812, 98 P. 219.) The questions discussed appear t......
  • Haynes v. Smith, Case Number: 1720
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 14, 1911
    ...to a petition in error are generally allowed as of course. Railway Company v. Whitaker, 42 Kan. 634, 22 P. 733; Crawford v. Railway Co., 45 Kan. 474, 25 P. 865. After the expiration of such time, matters of form may be corrected, but no new allegations of error can be made. Crawford v. Rail......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 9, 1908
    ...Jarvis v. Chase County (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. 919; Brewer v. Moyer (Kan.), 84 P. 719; Smetters v. Rame......
  • Creek Realty Co. v. City of Muskogee, Case Number: 55005501
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 23, 1915
    ...but, in effect at least, the filing of a new case-made. Couse v. Phelps, 11 Kan. 455; Crawford v. Kansas City, F. S. & G. Ry. Co., 45 Kan. 474, 25 P. 865; Hall v. Houpt, 6 Kan. App. 921, 51 P. 918; Vanhorn v. Vanhorn, 74 Kan. 891, 88 P. 62. It proposes an amendment in order to confer ju......
  • Smith v. Bowersock, 19,371
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • April 10, 1915
    ...& Wilson Mfg. Co., 29 Kan. 476; Bates v. [95 Kan. 100] Lyman, 35 Kan. 634, 12 P. 33; Crawford v. K. C., Ft. S. & G. Rld. Co., 45 Kan. 474, 25 P. 865; Surety Co. v. Ashmore, 74 Kan. 325, 86 P. 453; Benefit Association v. Wood, 78 Kan. 812, 98 P. 219.) The questions discussed appear t......
  • Haynes v. Smith, Case Number: 1720
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 14, 1911
    ...to a petition in error are generally allowed as of course. Railway Company v. Whitaker, 42 Kan. 634, 22 P. 733; Crawford v. Railway Co., 45 Kan. 474, 25 P. 865. After the expiration of such time, matters of form may be corrected, but no new allegations of error can be made. Crawford v. Rail......
  • 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