Kansas & C.P. Ry. Co. v. Wright
| Decision Date | 07 April 1894 |
| Citation | 36 P. 331,53 Kan. 272 |
| Parties | KANSAS & C. P. RY. CO. v. WRIGHT. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
A judgment was rendered by a judge of the district court near the end of his term, on November 1, 1889, when 60 days were given to make a case for the supreme court, 10 days thereafter were allowed to suggest amendments thereto, and it was ordered that the case should be settled at some future time on 5 days’ notice. The case was served December 28, 1889, but no amendments thereto were ever suggested or made. The term of the district judge who tried the cause expired on January 13, 1890, 3 days after the time for suggesting amendments had passed. No notice of the presentation of the case for settlement and signing was given until the following June, and the case was settled over objections on July 10, 1890. Held that, as the term of the judge expired when no time was fixed for settling and signing the case, he had no authority to settle and sign the same.
Error from district court, Sumner county; J. T. Herrick, Judge.
Action by Joshua Wright against the Kansas & Colorado Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Dismissed.
J. H Richards and C. E. Benton, for plaintiff in error.
Schwinn & Rogers, for defendant in error.
The Kansas & Colorado Pacific Railway Company asks for the reversal of a judgment for $800, obtained by Joshua Wright for land alleged to have been conveyed to the railway company for a right of way. The defendant in error insists that no authenticated case made has been brought up to this court, nor any record which warrants us in reviewing the proceedings of the district court. The judgment was rendered November 1, 1889, when 60 days were given to the railway company in which to serve a case for the supreme court, and 10 days thereafter were given to Wright to suggest amendments to such case made, and the other provided that the case made should be settled on 5 days’ notice. The case made was served on December 28, 1889, and no amendments were ever suggested or made. The term of the district judge who tried the case expired on January 13, 1890, when his successor was inducted into office, and entered upon the discharge of its duties. No further step was taken with reference to the case made until the 31st day of June, 1890, when notice was given that the case would be presented for settlement to the judge who tried the case on July 10, 1890. At that time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Lynch
...he cannot settle and sign the case. We think this view is in perfect harmony with the decisions in Railway Co. v. Corser and in Railway Co. v. Wright, supra, and that, as the term Justice Bierer expired during the time fixed by his order for making and serving the case-made in this cause, h......
-
Douglas v. Woodward
... ... L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Corser, 31 Kan. 705, 3 P ... 569; K. & C. P. Rly. Co. v. Wright, 53 Kan. 272, ... 36 P. 331.) ... It is ... insisted, however, that since these ... ...
-
Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Columbia Mfg. Co.
...57 P. 136 8 Kan.App. 690 STODDARD MFG. CO. v. COLUMBIA MFG. CO. et al. Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, Central DivisionMay 12, 1899 ... 1. The ... Medler, 18 Kan. 425; Railway Co. v. Corser, 31 ... Kan. 706, 3 P. 569; Railway Co. v. Wright, 53 Kan ... 272, 36 P. 331; Railroad Co. v. Leeman, 5 Kan.App ... 804, 48 P. 932; Waterfield v ... ...
-
The Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Preston
...by specifying an indeterminate period within which the parties may come before him for the settlement of the case." In K. & C. P. Rly. Co. v. Wright, supra, it said: "The only contingency which warrants an ex-judge in settling and signing a case is that at the expiration of his term the tim......