Duigenan v. Claus

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtVALENTINE, J.
Citation26 P. 699,46 Kan. 275
Decision Date09 May 1891
PartiesDUIGENAN v. CLAUS.

26 P. 699

46 Kan. 275

DUIGENAN
v.
CLAUS.

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 9, 1891


Syllabus

Errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the supreme court unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such errors, has been made by the complaining party, and acted upon by the trial court, and its ruling excepted to, and afterwards assigned for error in the supreme court.

Error from district court, Marshall county; E. HUTCHINSON, Judge.

W. A. Calderhead, for plaintiff in error.

J. A. Broughton, for defendant in error.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.

All the matters and things complained of as errors in this case are such as occurred during the trial in the court below. At the close of the trial in that court the jury found in favor of the defendant and against the [46 Kan. 276] plaintiff. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial, setting forth in his motion various grounds, including the rulings now complained of. This motion was heard by the court and overruled, and no exception was taken to the ruling. Judgment was then rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff for costs, and the plaintiff, as plaintiff in error, brings the case to this court for review; but he does [26 P. 700] not assign the ruling of the court below upon his motion for a new trial as error, and therefore it is claimed by the defendant in error that there is nothing presented by the petition in error for review in this court. Under the decisions of this court this claim of the defendant in error is correct. Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 P. 327; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 P. 645; Bank v. Jaffray, 41 Kan. 691, 19 P. 626; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129, 23 P. 109.

Errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the supreme court unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such errors, has been made by the complaining party, and acted upon by the trial court, and its ruling excepted to, and afterwards assigned for error in the supreme court. In connection with the cases above cited, see, also, Buettinger v. Hurley, 34 Kan. 585, 9 P. 197. The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

All the justices concurring.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Carmichael v. Bailey's Estate, 36898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 8, 1947
    ...Buettinger v. Hurley, 34 Kan. 585, Syl.2, 9 P. 197; Fairfield, Assignee, v. Dawson, 39 Kan. 147; Syl., 17 P. 804; Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275, Syl. 1, 26 P. 699; State ex rel. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 115 Kan. 236, Syl. 8, 223 P. 771. Here we have such a motion, but it is said......
  • Burns v. Hunter, 28,270
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 3, 1928
    ...be wholly disregarded by you." This instruction became the law of that feature of the case with which it dealt. (Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275, 26 P. 699; Dryden v. C. K. & N. Rly. Co., 47 Kan. 445, 28 P. 153; Railway Co. v. Schroll, 76 Kan. 572, 92 P. 596; 14 R. C. L. 808, 822.) Following......
  • Longfellow v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • July 11, 1900
    ...of the court on his motion for a new trial. Hence there is nothing before the court for review. Within the authority of Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275, 26 P. 699, the petition in error will be dismissed. ...
3 cases
  • Carmichael v. Bailey's Estate, 36898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 8, 1947
    ...Buettinger v. Hurley, 34 Kan. 585, Syl.2, 9 P. 197; Fairfield, Assignee, v. Dawson, 39 Kan. 147; Syl., 17 P. 804; Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275, Syl. 1, 26 P. 699; State ex rel. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 115 Kan. 236, Syl. 8, 223 P. 771. Here we have such a motion, but it is said......
  • Burns v. Hunter, 28,270
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 3, 1928
    ...be wholly disregarded by you." This instruction became the law of that feature of the case with which it dealt. (Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275, 26 P. 699; Dryden v. C. K. & N. Rly. Co., 47 Kan. 445, 28 P. 153; Railway Co. v. Schroll, 76 Kan. 572, 92 P. 596; 14 R. C. L. 808, 822.) Following......
  • Longfellow v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • July 11, 1900
    ...of the court on his motion for a new trial. Hence there is nothing before the court for review. Within the authority of Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275, 26 P. 699, the petition in error will be dismissed. ...

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