Green v. Frank
| Decision Date | 09 July 1938 |
| Docket Number | 33717. |
| Parties | GREEN v. FRANK. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The dismissal of appeal in automobile collision case was required, where reviewing court was unable to consider intelligently questions raised because of incompleteness of record, which did not include all of testimony and which bore only on one disputed fact of case and did not touch on all phases of that point.
In an action for damages growing out of an automobile collision where not all the testimony given at the trial was transcribed, and only a portion of the record was brought to this court, and this court is unable to consider intelligently the question raised by appellant on account of the incompleteness of the record, the appeal will be dismissed.
Appeal from District Court, Cowley County; Stewart S. Bloss, Judge.
Action by Xelpho Green against Walmer W. Frank to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
O. Renn and George Templar, both of Arkansas City, and M. L. Opperud and O. B. Martin, both of Blackwell, Okl., for appellant.
J. A McDermott, Chandler F. Jarvis, J. M. McDermott, and H. O Janicke, all of Winfield, for appellee.
This was an action for damages for injuries growing out of an automobile collision. Judgment was for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
The collision occurred while plaintiff was riding in the rear seat of a car owned by her, but which was being driven by her husband. Plaintiff and her husband lived at Newkirk, Okla. On the day the injury occurred they had driven in the car of the plaintiff from their home to Blackwell, Okla., where they had picked up another married couple. They had returned to Blackwell and then driven to Arkansas City, Kan., where the four of them had dinner with another couple. After dinner the three couples entered plaintiff's car, being driven by plaintiff's husband, and after one stop in Arkansas City started back to Newkirk, Okla., to the home of plaintiff and her husband, where their two minor sons were waiting. Plaintiff and the other two ladies were riding in the back seat. Her husband and the other two men were riding in the front seat. The collision occurred while driving south toward Newkirk. The car had just reached the south end of Chilocco bridge in Kay county, Okla., when it and defendant's car collided. As a result of the collision plaintiff's car was forced through the guard rails on the east side of the bridge. A piece of timber came through the side of the car, struck plaintiff on the leg, and injured her.
In her petition plaintiff set out the facts about the journey on which she and her husband were traveling and described the place where the collision occurred. She then alleged that defendant was negligent in the operation of his car, in that he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, did not remain on the right-hand side of the center of the road, but crossed over to the left-hand side, and that defendant was not watching the road and traffic at the time of the collision.
The answer of defendant was first a general denial, then an allegation that the injuries of plaintiff were the result of her own negligence and that of others jointly associated with her. The answer alleged that plaintiff and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barker v. Fleming
... ... 110, 112, 102 P.2d 1035; objections to ... instructions based on the premise the evidence did not ... warrant their submission, Green v. Frank, 148 Kan ... 194, 80 P.2d 1082; a contention there was no evidence to ... support a judgment as rendered, Readicker v ... Denning, 86 ... ...
-
Bisagno v. Lane
...620, 11 P.2d 978; Farmers State Bank v. Crawford, 140 Kan. 295, 37 P.2d 14; Mercer v. Kirkwood, 147 Kan. 637, 77 P.2d 929; Green v. Frank, 148 Kan. 194, 80 P.2d 1082; Deerhead Township v. Fritz, 152 Kan. 110, 112, 102 P.2d 1035; Schreiner v. Rothgarn, 154 Kan. 20, 114 P.2d 834; Kininmonth v......
- City of Harper v. Fink