L. v. Sheets
| Decision Date | 11 January 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,295 |
| Citation | 93 P. 577,77 Kan. 761 |
| Parties | ELIZABETH L. V. SHEETS, as Executrix, etc., v. C. B. HENDERSON |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1908.
Error from Atchison district court; BENJAMIN F. HUDSON, judge.
Proceeding in error dismissed.
Sheffield Ingalls, for plaintiff in error.
Jackson & Jackson, for defendant in error.
This case was submitted to the court (a jury having been waived) upon an agreed statement of facts, on June 2, 1906, and no other evidence was produced or offered. On the 16th day of the same month, the court having taken the case under advisement, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff for costs. No order extending the time for making and serving a case-made for appeal was asked for or entered by the court. A motion for a new trial, however, was filed within the time prescribed by statute, and this motion was heard and denied November 14, 1906. A case-made was served within ten days thereafter, and was settled and signed December 4, 1906. As there was no issue of fact tried there could be no new trial of such an issue ( Darling v. Railway Co., 76 Kan. 893, 94 P. 202); also, as the decision involved only the determination of a question of law, no new trial was necessary, and the filing of such motion did not extend the time for making and serving a case-made. (Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 Kan. 283, 85 P. 299.)
It follows that the judgment became final and the court lost jurisdiction to settle and sign a case-made upon the expiration of ten days after the rendition of the judgment.
The proceeding in error is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schubach v. Hammer
... ... of course, upon whom is the burden of proof, whether that be ... the plaintiff or the defendant--is sufficient to support a ... verdict or judgment. (Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 ... Kan. 283, syl. P 2; 85 P. 299; White v. Railway Co., ... 74 Kan. 778, syl P 2, 88 P. 54; Sheets v. Henderson, ... 77 Kan. 761, 93 P. 577; Van Tuyl v. Morrow, 77 Kan ... 849, 92 P. 303; Sarbach v. Deposit Co., 87 Kan. 774, ... 125 P. 63; Moore v. Annuity Association, 93 Kan ... 398, 404, 148 P. 981; Sheahan v. Kansas City, 102 ... Kan. 252, syl. P 1, 169 P. 957; Sampson v ... ...
-
In re Barrett's Estate
... ... appointing an administrator is not authorized by law ... (State v. Reddish, (Mo.) 129 S.W. 53; Grover v ... Fowler, (Mo.) 18 S.W. 968). There can be no new trial of ... the case and the motion for new trial raised no question ... Quist v. Hill, 154 Cal. 748, 99 P. 204; Sheets ... v. Henderson, 77 Kan. 761, 93 P. 577; Antonioli's ... Est., (Mont.) 111 P. 1033). Therefore, a proceeding in error ... based upon the assignment that the court erred in overruling ... James Barrett's motion for a new trial is of no force ... The application of Patrick as well as that of ... ...
-
In re Achenbach's Estate
... ... Tacha ... v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Railway Co., 97 Kan. 571, 155 P ... 922; McLeod v. Palmer, 96 Kan. 159, 150 P. 535 ... It is ... well established that when a motion for new trial is ... unnecessary the time for taking appeal cannot be extended by ... filing such a motion. Sheets v. Henderson, 77 Kan ... 761, 93 P. 577; Ritchie v. Kansas, N. & D. Ry. Co., ... 55 Kan. 36, 48, 39 P. 718; Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan ... 351, 144 P. 251; Buzbee v. Morstorf, 105 Kan. 270, ... 182 P. 644 ... In view ... of the conclusion reached that the appeal was not timely ... ...
-
Heilman v. Heilman
...for a new trial does not extend the time for taking of an appeal. See Ackenbach v. Baker, 157 Kan. 292, 139 P.2d 407; Sheets v. Henderson, 77 Kan. 761, 93 P. 577; Ritchie v. Kansas N. & D. Ry. Co., 55 Kan. 36, 39 P. 718; Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351, 144 P. 251; and Buzbee v. Morstorf, 105 ......