Landauer v. Hoagland

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtSIMPSON, C.:
Citation41 Kan. 520,21 P. 645
Decision Date10 May 1889
PartiesJULIUS LANDAUER et al. v. N. HOAGLAND

21 P. 645

41 Kan. 520

JULIUS LANDAUER et al.
v.
N. HOAGLAND

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 10, 1889


Error from Wyandotte District Court.

THE opinion states the case.

Judgment affirmed.

D. B. Hadley, and J. W. Jenkins, for plaintiffs in error.

Hutchings & Keplinger, for defendant in error.

SIMPSON, C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION [21 P. 646]

SIMPSON, C.:

The petition in error filed in this case contains eight assignments of error, which, as is alleged, occurred during the trial in the court below. These errors, to be considered by this court, must have been called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial; and the adverse ruling of the trial court on the motion for a new trial must be specifically assigned as error in the petition in error filed in this court. This has not been done. The action of the trial court in overruling the motion of plaintiffs in error for a new trial is not assigned as error here, and hence we cannot consider the questions discussed as to the introduction of evidence, the instructions, etc. (Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 id. 72.)

It is recommended that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 9, 1908
    ...285; Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259; Crawford v. Kansas City, 45 Kan. 474; McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72; Carson v. Frink, 27 Kan. 524; Binn v. Adams, 54 Kan.. 615; Coffeyville v. Dolley (Kan.), 84 P. 719; Turner v. Fra......
  • Duigenan v. Claus
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • May 9, 1891
    ...claim of the defendant in error is correct. Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 P. 327; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 P. 645; Bank v. Jaffray, 41 Kan. 691, 19 P. 626; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129, 23 P. 109. Errors occurring during the trial can......
  • Quinton v. Waters
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • January 4, 1900
    ...within the operation of the rule announced in Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 P. 327; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 P. 645. The petition in error is dismissed. ...
  • Roper v. Ferris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 1, 1892
    ...new trial is not assigned as error. This is necessary to have such assignments of error considered in this court. ( Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 P. 645; Clark v. Schnur, 40 id. 72; Carson v. Funk, 27 id. 524.) The judgment of the district court should be affirmed. By the Court: It ......
4 cases
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 9, 1908
    ...285; Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259; Crawford v. Kansas City, 45 Kan. 474; McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72; Carson v. Frink, 27 Kan. 524; Binn v. Adams, 54 Kan.. 615; Coffeyville v. Dolley (Kan.), 84 P. 719; Turner v. Fra......
  • Duigenan v. Claus
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • May 9, 1891
    ...claim of the defendant in error is correct. Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 P. 327; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 P. 645; Bank v. Jaffray, 41 Kan. 691, 19 P. 626; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129, 23 P. 109. Errors occurring during the trial can......
  • Quinton v. Waters
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • January 4, 1900
    ...within the operation of the rule announced in Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 P. 327; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 P. 645. The petition in error is dismissed. ...
  • Roper v. Ferris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 1, 1892
    ...new trial is not assigned as error. This is necessary to have such assignments of error considered in this court. ( Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 P. 645; Clark v. Schnur, 40 id. 72; Carson v. Funk, 27 id. 524.) The judgment of the district court should be affirmed. By the Court: It ......

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