Gilley v. Gilley, 39265
| Decision Date | 10 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 39265,39265 |
| Parties | GILLEY v. GILLEY et ux. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. On an appeal the rule is that error is never presumed.
2. On an appeal the burden is on the party alleging error to show it.
3. Rule 5 of the supreme court requires that the abstract of the appellant shall include a specification of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered.
4. Rule 6(3)(b) of the supreme court requires the brief of the appellant shall contain a statement of the question or questions involved.
5. Where the appellant's abstract does not contain any specification of error, and his brief does not contain any statement of the questions involved, the appeal will be dismissed.
Thomas H. Taggart, Goodland, was on the brief for appellant.
Leon N. Roulier, Colby, was on the brief for appellee.
This was an action in which plaintiff sought to have a 'restraint and reservation' contained in a deed conveying real estate to him declared void and to quiet his title to the real estate. A demurrer to his petition was sustained and he perfected an appeal to this court. Subsequently appellant filed in this court his abstract and brief.
The abstract does not contain any specification of the errors complained of as required by Rule 5 of this court, nor does the brief contain any statement of the questions involved as required by Rule 6(3)(b) of this court.
It is observed further that the brief contains no argument whatever but consists solely of quotations from four texts the applicability of which is left to surmise.
Under Dupont v. Lotus Oil Co., 168 Kan. 544, 213 P.2d 975, and cases cited, where appellant makes no attempt to comply with Rule 5 his appeal is subject to dismissal. And see also Quivira, Inc. v. Quivira Co., Inc., 173 Kan. 339, 245 P.2d 972, and cases cited, that error is never presumed and that the burden is on the party alleging error to show it.
The appeal must be and it is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blevins v. Daugherty, 41888
...v. Circle-B Inc., 180 Kan. 34, 299 P.2d 576; Rice v. Hovey, supra; Quick v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d 626; Gilley v. Gilley, 176 Kan. 61, 268 P.2d 938; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 244 P.2d 1213; City of Independence v. Wendorff, 169 Kan. 14, 16, 216 P.2d 820; Dupont v. Lotus Oil Co.......
-
North Am. Finance Corp. v. Circle-B, Inc.
...101, 138 P.2d 463; Topping v. Tuckel, supra; Dupont v. Lotus Oil Co., supra; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 244 P.2d 1213; Gilley v. Gilley, 176 Kan. 61, 268 P.2d 938; Quick v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d These appeals are dismissed. ...
-
Steck v. City of Wichita
...that the city made any affirmative showing that it was prejudicial and we will not disturb the judgment on that ground. Gilley v. Gilley, 176 Kan. 61, 268 P.2d 938. We cannot agree with the city's theory that there was no evidence as to the price of one half acre lots in the area and that t......
-
McIntyre v. Dickinson
...155 P.2d 427]; Dupont v. Lotus Oil Co., supra [168 Kan. 544, 213 P.2d 975]; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 244 P.2d 1213; Gilley v. Gilley, 176 Kan. 61, 268 P.2d 938; Quick v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ...