Rich v. Lappin
| Decision Date | 01 January 1890 |
| Citation | 43 Kan. 666,23 P. 1038 |
| Parties | H. H. RICH v. J. C. LAPPIN |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Comanche District Court.
THE case is stated in the opinion. Judgment for plaintiff Lappin at the March term, 1888. The defendant Rich brings the case here.
Judgment reversed and caused remanded.
T. G Chambers, and W. S. Denton, for plaintiff in error.
W. A Taylor, and C. E. Elliott, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action brought before a justice of the peace of Comanche county by J. C. Lappin against H. H. Rich, to recover; $ 60, which the plaintiff alleges he had to pay to the defendant to procure the release from the sheriff of the county of two mules in which the plaintiff had an interest, and which had been wrongfully seized by the sheriff at the instance of the defendant. After judgment in the justice's court, and an appeal to the district court, the case was tried before the district court with a jury, and at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the defendant demurred to both the plaintiff's bill of particulars and the evidence, upon the ground that neither disclosed facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which demurrer the court overruled; and then the defendant requested the court to give written instructions to the jury, which the court refused. The record upon this subject, so far as it is necessary to quote it, reads as follows:
"Whereupon the defendant requested the court to give written instructions to the jury in said cause; whereupon the court delivered his instructions orally, the stenographer taking them down and writing them out after the jury had retired, to all of which the defendant duly objected and excepted at the time."
We think the court below erred. Section 275 of the civil code, so far as it is necessary to quote it, reads as follows:
In this connection, see the following cases: The State v. Potter, 15 Kan. 302; City of Atchison v. Jansen, 21 id. 560.
There are other errors assigned, but we do not think that the court below committed any error except in refusing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company v. Dawson
... ... court to instruct the jury in writing ... ( ... Wheat v. Brown, 3 Kan.App. 431, 43 P. 807; Rich ... v. Lappin, 43 Kan. 666, 23 P. 1038; City of Atchison ... v. Jansen, 21 id. 560; Scruton v. Hall, 6 ... Kan.App. 714, 50 P. 964.) ... ...
-
State v. Harding
...notes were extended and delivered to the jury after retiring, the action of the court was held to be reversible error. Rich v. Lappin, 43 Kan. 666, 23 P. 1038. The difference in the statutes of the two states, so far as material, is that the law of Kansas required the court to instruct in w......
-
State v. Harding
... ... reporter's notes were extended and delivered to the jury ... after retiring, the action of the court was held to be ... reversible error. Rich v. Lappin, 43 Kan. 666, 23 P ... 1038. The difference in the statutes of the two states, so ... far as material, is that the law of Kansas ... ...
-
Brown v. Crawford
... ... The language of the Code is ... that it shall be given in writing before argument, and signed ... by the judge. In the case of Rich v. Lappin, 43 Kan. 666, 23 ... P. 1038, it was held that "the district court must give ... its instructions to the jury in writing, when requested ... ...