Lemon v. Pauls
| Decision Date | 03 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 42488,42488 |
| Parties | Dean W. LEMON and Bernice E. Lemon, Appellants, v. Fred C. PAULS, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Following Blevins v. Daugherty, 187 Kan. 257, 356 P.2d 852, and the numerous decisions and authorities of like import therein cited, it is held:
(1) Rule No. 5 of this court (see 183 Kan. XI; G.S.1949, 60-3826, 'Rules of the Supreme Court ' No. 5) requires that the party seeking appellate review of a trial court's order or judgment shall include in his abstract a specification of the errors of which he complains, separately set forth and numbered.
(2) Where an appellant has made no attempt to conform with the requirements of the rule mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this syllabus and has failed to set forth in his abstract a specification of the errors complained of, in compliance with such rule, appellate review is precluded and his appeal will be dismissed.
Lyndus A. Henry, David R. Gilman, Gwendolyn V. Falkenberg, and Lyle M. Hanson, Overland Park, were on the briefs for appellants.
Keith Martin, Mission, and Harold Hammond, Olathe, were on the briefs for appellee.
Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities as private citizens, commenced this action in the district court of Johnson County by filing a petition in which they sought and demanded a mandatory injunction, under the provisions of G.S.1949, 82a-301 to 305, incl., directing the defendant, as an alleged upper riparian landholder, to obtain a permit from the Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources for alterations made by such landholder on an alleged common stream without having received such a permit. Defendant demurred to the petition for the reason it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the trial court sustained the demurrer upon that basis. Thereupon plaintiffs perfected the instant appeal in which, in utter disregard of the requirements of Rule No. 5 (See 183 Kan. XI; G.S.1949, 60-3826 'Rules of the Supreme Court No. 5'), with an abstract of record containing no specifications of error whatsoever, they now seek to have this court review divers questions raised by them as affording grounds for reversal of the trial court's order and judgment.
The fact, as pointed out, that appellants have wholly failed to comply with the requirements of Rule No. 5 which, so far as here pertinent, provides 'The appellant's abstract shall include a specification of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered.', requires the court to direct attention to what is now its definitely established rule when faced with such a situation on appeal. Simply stated the rule is that where--as here--appellants have failed to comply with the quoted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. Hand
...179 Kan. 319, 295 P.2d 626; Rice v. Hovey, 180 Kan. 38, 299 P.2d 45; Blevins v. Daugherty, 187 Kan. 257, 259, 356 P.2d 852; Lemon v. Pauls, 189 Kan. 314, 369 P.2d 355). Notwithstanding the petitioner failed to file a motion for a new trial raising the question of the sufficiency of the evid......
- Albin v. Munsell
-
Hall v. Hand
...P.2d 402; Blevins v. Daugherty, 187 Kan. 257, 259, 356 P.2d 852; State v. Armstrong, 188 Kan. 567, 569, 570, 363 P.2d 520; Lemon v. Pauls, 189 Kan. 314, 369 P.2d 355, and the numerous decisions therein In passing it should perhaps be noted that in the face of the record presented, there are......
-
Byers v. Hand
...with the question see Blevins v. Daugherty, 187 Kan. 257, 356 P.2d 852; State v. Armstrong, 188 Kan. 567, 363 P.2d 520, and Lemon v. Pauls, 189 Kan. 314, 369 P.2d 355. There being nothing before us for review, the appeal is ...