Decker v. House
| Decision Date | 01 July 1883 |
| Citation | 30 Kan. 614,1 P. 584 |
| Parties | LEVI DECKER v. WILLIAM A HOUSE |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Shawnee District Court.
AUGUST 12, 1882, House had judgment against Decker, who alleges error, and brings it here for review. The facts appear in the opinion.
Judment affirmed.
J. P Greer, for plaintiff in error.
F. S Stumbaugh, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace by William A. House against Levi Decker, on a promissory note for $ 36, payable to Cayhill & Co., or bearer. The plaintiff acknowledged the indorsement of $ 11 on the note, and asked to recover only the remainder, with interest. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for $ 26.25, and the defendant appealed to the district court, where a trial was again had and judgment was again rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for the sum of $ 25, with interest and costs, amounting in the aggregate to $ 28, and costs. The defendant now brings the case to this court, and asks that the judgment be reversed.
The plaintiff in error, defendant below, alleges in his petition in error that the court below erred "in giving judgment for the plaintiff, when by law judgment should have been given for the defendant." This is the only alleged error. This alleged error is founded upon the grounds: (1) That the pleadings in the case did not authorize any judgment in favor of the plaintiff below and against the defendant below; (2) that the evidence did not authorize any such judgment. And these are the only grounds upon which said supposed error is founded.
I. It is claimed that the pleadings did not authorize a judgment in favor of the plaintiff below and against the defendant below for the reason that the note was not made payable to the plaintiff below, and the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege in his bill of particulars that the note had been transferred to him, or that he in any manner had become the owner thereof. As before stated, the note was made payable to Cayhill & Co., or bearer. The plaintiff sued on it, and alleged in his bill of particulars among other things "that the balance, $ 25, is due and unpaid; that the claim is just; and plaintiff, being the owner of said note, demands judgment for $ 25, with interest from September 18, 1879, at the rate of ten per cent. per annum, with costs of suit." Now the plaintiff sued on the note, and in his bill of particulars demanded judgment thereon; said that the claim was just; and used the following among other words: "plaintiff, being the owner of said note;" and the case seems to have been litigated from beginning to end, in the justice's court and in the district court, without any question being raised as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's bill of particulars, or as to the sufficiency of his allegations of ownership, or as to his being in fact the real owner of the note. This question is raised for the first time in the supreme court, and therefore, although the allegations in the plaintiff's bill of particulars with regard to the ownership of the note are not very formal, yet we thin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffers v. Jeffers
...been asserted to the trial court in connection with a motion for a new trial before it can be considered in this court. See Decker v. House, 30 Kan. 614, 1 P. 584; McNally v. Keplinger, 37 Kan. 556, 15 P. 534; Anderson v. Connecticut Mut. Life Insurance Co., 55 Kan. 81, 39 P. 1038; Weaver v......
-
Stanard v. Sampson
...upon and including such errors, has been made and overruled. Nesbit v. Hines, 17 Kan. 316; Atchison v. Byrnes, 22 Kan. 65; Decker v. House, 30 Kan. 614, 1 P. 584; Wilson v. Kestler, 34 Kan. 61, 7 P. 793; Buettinger v. Hurley et al., 34 Kan. 585, 9 P. 197; McNally v. Keplinger, 37 Kan. 556, ......
-
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Lewis
...v. Mudenger, 22 Kan. 731; Atchison v. Byrnes, 22 Kan. 65; Clark v. Imbrie, 25 Kan. 424; Greenwell v. Greenwell, 28 Kan. 413; Decker v. House, 30 Kan. 614, 1 P. 584. For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. ¶5 By the Court: It is so ordered. ...
-
Glaser v. Glaser
...Co., 6 Okla. 11, 41 P. 356; Beberstein v. Territory, 8 Okla. 467, 58 P. 641; Boyd et al. v. Bryan et al., 11 Okla. 56, 65 P. 940; Decker v. House, 30 Kan. 614; Atchison v. State ex rel., 34 Kan. 379, 8 P. 367; Hardwick v. Atkinson, 8 Okla. 608, 58 P. 747.) ¶10 It was also held in Everett v.......