Harder v. The Yates Center Water

Decision Date14 November 1914
Docket Number17,302
PartiesC. F. HARDER, Appellant, v. THE YATES CENTER WATER, LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY et al., Appellees
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided, July, 1914.

Appeal from Woodson district court; OSCAR FOUST, judge.

Judgment sustained and cause dismissed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

JUDGMENT--Motion for New Trial Filed Too Late--Cause Dismissed. It appearing from the record that the judgment was rendered on the 20th day of April, and that the motion for a new trial was filed on the 29th day of April, 1910, the cause will be dismissed for the reason that the motion was filed more than three days after the rendition of the judgment appealed from.

S. C. Holmes, of Yates Center, for the appellant.

F. W. Casner, of Kansas City, Mo., G. H. Lamb, and W. E. Hogueland, both of Yates Center, for the appellees.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

Plaintiff sued to enjoin the erection and maintenance of a dam and reservoir on a stream adjacent to his lands, which he alleged is a natural watercourse, and which ran through his own land above and below the dam. He alleged that defendants by maintaining the dam where it is caused the water to flood the portion of his lands above the reservoir and prevented the natural flow of the stream upon other lands belonging to him below. There is no question raised except as to trial errors. At the outset plaintiff's right to be heard in this court is challenged on the ground that his motion for a new trial was filed too late. It is stated in the abstract that the judgment was rendered April 20, and that the motion for a new trial was filed on April 29, 1910. The point was raised at the oral argument and in the briefs, and from the silence of counsel we assume there is no explanation to be made. The motion having been made more than three days after judgment, the challenge is sustained and the cause will be dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Burnham v. Burnham
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1926
    ... ... to a timely motion for a new trial. (Harder v. Power ... Co., 93 Kan. 177, 148 P. 603.) Want of an appeal from a ... ...
  • Perkins v. The Great Western Accident Association
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1915
    ...on April 12, 1914. The motion for a new trial was filed April 28, 1914. This motion was filed too late. (Civ. Code, § 306; Harder v. Power Co., 93 Kan. 177, 148 P. 603.) course, on an issue of law no motion for a new trial is necessary. (Ritchie v. K. N. & D. Rly. Co., 55 Kan. 36, 39 P. 718......
  • Harder v. The Yates Center Water
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1915
    ...from Woodson district court; OSCAR FOUST, judge. Opinion on rehearing filed May 8, 1915. Affirmed. (For original opinion of dismissal see 93 Kan. 177.) Judgment SYLLABUS SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. 1. INJUNCTION--When Mandatory Injunction Should Issue. Whether a mandatory injunction requiring a ......
  • State v. Callahan
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1914

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