Longfellow v. Smith
| Decision Date | 11 July 1900 |
| Citation | 10 Kan.App. 575,61 P. 875 |
| Parties | LONGFELLOW v. SMITH. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Error from court of common pleas, Wyandotte county; William G. Holt, Judge.
Action by Martha A. Smith against J. W. Longfellow, sheriff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Dismissed.
J. A. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
T. P. Anderson and Geo. W. Littick, for defendant in error.
This is an action in replevin brought by Martha A. Smith, defendant in error, for the recovery of the possession of certain described personal property, consisting of several head of cattle, alleged to have been unlawfully detained from her by J. W. Longfellow, the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff’s petition was in the usual form. The answer was a general denial, except an admission that defendant was in possession of the property. A trial was had, and the jury returned a verdict and findings for the plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and he prepared his case-made, and presents the record to this court for review.
The defendant in error interposes her motion to dismiss the petition in error. The assignments of error are (1) that the court erred in excluding competent testimony; (2) in instructing the jury; (3) in admitting incompetent testimony; (4) in overruling his motion for a new trial; (5) in refusing to set aside the verdict and in refusing a new trial. It will be observed that all of the assignments of error are alleged errors occurring at the trial. Errors occurring at the trial are reviewable only after a motion for a new trial has been presented to the trial court, overruled, and exceptions taken to the action of the court thereon. The defendant in the trial court did not save an exception to the ruling of the court on his motion for a new trial. Hence there is nothing before the court for review. Within the authority of Duigenan v. Claus, 46 Kan. 275, 26 P. 699, the petition in error will be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenleaf v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, a Corporation
... ... attorney has a lien in a tort action. Anderson v ... Metropolitan Street R. Co., 10 Kan.App. 575, 61 P. 982; ... Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 56 Iowa 720, 10 ... N.W. 244; Gibson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 122 ... Iowa 565, 98 N.W. 474; Barthell v ... ...
-
Stanard v. Sampson
...34 Kan. 61, 7 P. 793; Buettinger v. Hurley et al., 34 Kan. 585, 9 P. 197; McNally v. Keplinger, 37 Kan. 556, 15 P. 534; Longfellow v. Smith, 10 Kan. App. 575, 61 P. 875; Hardwick et al. v. Atkinson, 8 Okla. 608, 58 P. 747; De Berry v. Smith, 2 Okla. 1, 35 P. 578; Wood v. Farnham, 1 Okla. 37......
-
Stanard v. Sampson
...34 Kan. 61, 7 P. 793; Buettinger v. Hurley et al., 34 Kan. 585, 9 P. 197; McNally v. Keplinger, 37 Kan. 556, 15 P. 534; Longfellow v. Smith, 10 Kan. App. 575, 61 P. 875; Hardwick et al. v. Atkinson, 8 Okl. 609, 58 P. De Berry v. Smith, 2 Okl. 1, 35 P. 578; Wood v. Farnham, 1 Okl. 375, 33 P.......