Mason v. Harlow
| Decision Date | 07 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,681 |
| Citation | 91 Kan. 807,139 P. 384 |
| Parties | JAMES M. MASON, Appellant, v. SKIP D. HARLOW, Appellee |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1914.
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 1; FRANK D HUTCHINGS, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. INJUNCTION--Prosecution of Suit in Another State. The decision rendered on the former appeal (Mason v. Harlow, 84 Kan. 277, 114 P. 218), respecting equitable interference to prevent the prosecution of a suit in another state, approved and followed.
2. TRIAL--Conflicting Evidence--Findings of Fact Conclusive. A finding by the district court of all the issues of fact in favor of the defendant based on conflicting evidence, essential portions of which consisted of oral testimony, ends the controversy over the facts.
L. W. Keplinger, and L. J. Mason, both of Kansas City, for the appellant.
J. O. Emerson, David J. Smith, and H. E. Dean, all of Kansas City, for the appellee.
Mason brought suit against Harlow to enjoin the prosecution of an action in a court of Arkansas in which Harlow sought to recover damages for a libel published against him by Mason in Arkansas. The district court refused a temporary injunction and sustained a demurrer to the petition. On appeal the judgment was reversed in the case of Mason v. Harlow, 84 Kan. 277, 114 P. 218, where the essential facts of the plaintiff's cause of action are stated. The case has now been tried on its merits. The district court found all the issues in favor of the defendant, and rendered judgment accordingly. Mason again appeals.
The circumstances under which equity will interfere to prevent the prosecution of a suit in another state were stated in the former opinion, to which the court adheres. The plaintiff relied on two facts to furnish the necessary equitable basis for relief. These were that the suit in Arkansas was maliciously brought to harass the plaintiff and obstruct the administration of justice, and that the character of the plaintiff's business in Arkansas was of a certain kind. If of that kind, it is argued that the plaintiff was privileged from the service of civil process. The court has found both these facts against the plaintiff on conflicting evidence, essential portions of which consisted of oral testimony. That ends the controversy over the facts.
The plaintiff undertakes to show that the service made on him in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Morrow, 528
...332; McWhorter v. Williams, 228 Ala. 632, 155 So. 309; Illinois Life Ins. Co. v. Prentiss, 277 Ill. 383, 115 N.E. 554; Mason v. Harlow, 91 Kan. 807, 139 P. 384; Boston & M. R. R. Co. v. Whitehead, supra; Paramount Pictures v. Blumenthal, 256 App. Div. 756, 11 N.Y.S.2d 768; American Express ......
- Harlow v. Mason
-
State v. Stillwell
... ... is sufficient evidence on which to base the judgment it will ... not be disturbed on appeal. (Winstead v ... Standeford, 21 Kan. 270; Mason v. Harlow, 91 ... Kan. 807, 139 P. 384; McCullagh v. Stone, 86 Kan ... 265, 119 P. 874; Work v. Work, 90 Kan. 683, 136 P ... 236; Kuhn v ... ...
- Harlow v. Mason