Fine v. Neale Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41234,41234 |
| Citation | 352 P.2d 404,186 Kan. 537 |
| Parties | Howard B. FINE, Appellee, v. NEALE CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a Corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where findings of fact are attacked for insufficiency of evidence or as being contrary to the evidence, the supreme court's power begins and ends with the determination whether there is any competent substantial evidence to support them, and where findings are so supported they are accepted as true and will not be distrubed on appeal, and in such a case it is of no consequence that there may have been much contradictory evidence adduced at the trial which, if believed by the trial court, would have compelled entirely different findings of fact and an entirely different judgment.
2. In an action by an officer-director of defendant company to recover salary and certain expenses, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff, the record is examined and considered and it is held: No error shown.
William L. Rees, Topeka, argued the cause, and Hall Smith, Topeka, and Lyle L. Robertson, Washington, D. C., were with him on the briefs for appellant.
Ernest J. Rice, Topeka, argued the cause, and Richard R. Funk, Topeka, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The plaintiff, Howard B. Fine, brought two actions--one against the Telephone & Power Supply Co., and the other against the Neale Construction Co., Inc., to recover certain salary and expense money. The actions were consolidated and tried together in the trial court, and in each case judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Each of the defendants appealed, and in the first-mentioned case the judgment was affirmed in Fine v. Telephone & Power Supply Co., 185 Kan. 383, 345 P.2d 616.
This appeal is by the defendant, Neale Construction Co., Inc.
It is unnecessary to set forth the pleadings of the parties except to say that plaintiff alleged defendant company was indebted to him for salary and certain expenses. This indebtedness was denied by defendant, and it is claimed that plaintiff, who was an officer and director of defendant, agreed with other officers to cancel and relinquish all salaries and claims after a certain date and until improvement was shown in the financial condition of defendant.
Except for the differences in identity of parties defendant, dates and amounts involved, the record in this case parallels closely that in the telephone company case, above, and for that reason will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bicknell v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue
...by the trial court, would have compelled entirely different findings of fact and an entirely different judgment." Fine v. Neale Construction Co. , 186 Kan. 537, Syl. ¶ 1, 352 P.2d 404 (1960). Over the course of the eight-day de novo trial, the parties presented a wide array of conflicting e......
-
Khalil-Alsalaami v. State
...by the trial court, would have compelled entirely different findings of fact and an entirely different judgment." Fine v. Neale Construction Co. , 186 Kan. 537, Syl. ¶ 1, 352 P.2d 404 (1960).And, in such a case, " ‘the court of appeals may not reverse [the district court] even though convin......
-
Renner v. Monsanto Chemical Co.
...Long-Bell Lumber Co., 184 Kan. 209, 336 P.2d 469; Fine v. Telephone & Power Supply Co., 185 Kan. 383, 345 P.2d 616; Fine v. Neale Construction Co., 186 Kan. 537, 352 P.2d 404; Dennis v. Smith, 186 Kan. 539, 352 P.2d Highly summarized, plaintiffs' expert testimony was that while the four Ren......
-
United Trust Co. v. Pyke, 44651
...contrary findings. (Kuhn v. Kuhn, 112 Kan. 155, 210 P. 343; In re Estate of Horton, 154 Kan. 269, 118 P.2d 527; Fine v. Neale Construction Co., 186 Kan. 537, 352 P.2d 404; In re Estate of Shirk, 194 Kan. 671, 401 P.2d 279; Denison Mutual Telephone Co. v. Kendall, 195 Kan. 227, 403 P.2d 1011......