McClure v. Scates
| Decision Date | 08 February 1902 |
| Docket Number | 11,983 |
| Citation | 67 P. 856,64 Kan. 282 |
| Parties | W. E. MCCLURE et al. v. T. A. SCATES |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1902.
Error from Seward district court; WM. EASTON HUTCHISON, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. MANDAMUS--Recovery of Damages--Practice. Where a judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff in a mandamus proceeding, he may, in the same proceeding and as a part of his remedy, recover such damages as he has actually sustained through the wrong-doing of the defendants.
2. MANDAMUS--Election Contest--Measure of Damages. Where a proceeding is brought to compel a contested-election court to settle and sign a bill of exceptions, and judgment is given for plaintiff, he may recover as damages attorneys' fees and other expenses necessarily incurred in procuring the settling and signing of the bill of exceptions.
Milton Brown, for plaintiffs in error.
T. A Scates, for defendant in error.
In the trial of a contested election in Seward county, the contest court determined that T. A. Scates, who claimed the the office of county attorney, had not been elected. Scates immediately prepared and presented to the contest court a bill of exceptions for settlement and to be signed when settled, but the judges of the contest court separated without taking any action, and Scates then brought this proceeding in mandamus to compel the settling and signing of a bill of exceptions. One of the judges, C. S. Kilgore, answered that he was ready to proceed to settle and sign, but service was not obtained on the other judges until a second writ was issued. When they were found and service of the writ made, they answered that the bill of exceptions presented was untrue; that it could not be corrected except "by long, laborious and tedious clerical work of moment, and requiring many days." Upon further inquiry, the court determined that the reasons set up for not settling and signing a bill of exceptions were not good, and that the returns were insufficient, and within an hour or two the judges amended their returns, stating that a bill of exceptions had been settled and signed by them; and the one signed is substantially the same as the one first presented to them.
The decision and judgment of the trial court were in favor of Scates, and it was further held that he was entitled to the damages which he had sustained from the wrongful acts of the defendants.
At the request of the defendants, a jury was called to determine the damages sustained by the plaintiff. The court, at the instance of the defendants, required the plaintiff to set up by way of amendment an itemized statement of the damages which he had sustained, and upon proof offered, the jury assessed his damages at $ 106.20, and for this amount judgment was rendered.
No sufficient excuse for their failure to act was alleged or shown by the members of the contest court, and their conduct as disclosed by the record evinces a disposition to avoid a plain duty. The bill of exceptions presented to them was a bona fide one, and the fact that they promptly signed it without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nissen v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters
...People v. Ahearn (Sup.) 121 N.Y.S. 819, supports this view. Bell v. Thomas, 49 Colo. 76, 111 P. 76, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 664;McClure v. Scates, 64 Kan. 282, 67 P. 856. But, independent of these cases, the general rule is, for which no authority need be cited, where a wrong has been done, and the......
-
Nissen v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America
... ... of People v. Ahearn (Sup.) 121 N.Y.S. 819, supports ... this view. Bell v. Thomas, 49 Colo. 76, 111 P. 76, ... 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 664; McClure v. Scates, 64 Kan. 282, ... 67 P. 856. But, independent of these cases, the general rule ... is, for which no authority need be cited, where a ... ...
-
Barten v. Turkey Creek Watershed Joint Dist. No. 32 of Dickinson and Marion Counties
...and the expense reasonably and necessarily incurred in compelling compliance, including reasonably attorneys' fees. (McClure v. Scates, 64 Kan. 282, 67 P. 856; and Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. Missouri Pac. Railway Co., 85 Kan. 214, 116 P. Under the provisions of the old code damages were all......
-
State ex rel. Kashmir Corp. v. Schmidt
...action for false return. See also, e. g., Columbia Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Finney, 93 Kan. 302, 144 P. 222 (1914); McClure v. Scates, 64 Kan. 282, 67 P. 856 (1902); State ex rel. Phillips v. Ford, 116 Mont. 190, 205, 151 P.2d 171, 178 (1944), and cases cited therein; State ex rel. Shea v......