Riley v. Riederer
| Decision Date | 10 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | 33153. |
| Parties | RILEY v. RIEDERER et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Judgment of district court cannot be vacated or modified by that court after term at which it was rendered, unless it falls within statutory exception (Rev.St.1923, 60--3007).
District court held without power to alter judgment on claim against receiver of national bank by declaring indebtedness to be preferred rather than common claim after expiration of almost two years after rendition of original judgment (Rev.St.1923 60--3007).
A judgment of the district court cannot be vacated or modified by that court after the term at which it is rendered, unless it falls within some exception provided by statute.
Appeal from District Court, Jackson County; Lloyde Morris, Judge.
Action by John R. Riley, executor of the estate of Michael Lutz against F. L. Riederer, J. E. Hayes, receiver of the First National Bank of Holton, and others. Judgment for plaintiff and second named defendant appeals.
Reversed.
E. R Sloan, of Topeka, for appellant.
M. A. Bender, of Holton, for appellee.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether appellee is entitled to judgment for a preferred claim.
The parties involved in the appeal are John R. Riley, executor of the estate of Michael Lutz, deceased, plaintiff, and J. E. Hayes, receiver of the First National Bank of Holton, defendant. Judgment was for plaintiff. Defendant appeals contending appellee is entitled to judgment for only a common claim.
Two trials are involved. In the first action it was the contention of appellee the bank had wrongfully taken possession of certain securities which belonged to appellee made collection thereon and retained the proceeds. Judgment was rendered on June 7, 1934. It recited the allegations against appellant were true and that appellant was indebted to appellee in the sum of $2,000. Appellee's pleadings, in the original action, contained no allegation, and the judgment contained no finding that the claim constituted a trust fund nor that the amount or any part thereof had augmented the assets of the bank which passed into the hands of the receiver. From this first judgment no appeal was taken. On February 14, 1935, appellee commenced proceedings in aid of execution. Appellant answered alleging the trial court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the citation and that the funds were in the hands of the Treasurer of the United States, subject to the order of the Comptroller of the Currency, and that appellee had been advised the Comptroller would pay the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...(3) that after the term has expired the judgment is not only binding upon the parties but upon the trial court as well (Riley v. Riederer, 144 Kan. 422, 61 P.2d 106; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 156 Kan. 647, 135 P.2d 887; and Hinshaw v. Hinshaw, 166 Kan. 481, 203 P.2d 201); and (4) that installment......
-
Bigler v. Goltl
... ... Van ... Horn, 140 Kan. 568, 37 P.2d 1015; Drury v ... Drury, 141 Kan. 511, 41 P.2d 1032; Id., 143 Kan. 83, 53 ... P.2d 792; Riley v. Riederer, 144 Kan. 422, 61 P.2d ... The ... above conclusion forecloses appellants' right for relief, ... but we shall notice ... ...
-
Topeka Morris Plan Co. v. Hill
...it has become res judicata. Manley v. Park, 62 Kan. 553, 562, 64 P. 28; Rennolds v. Guthrie, 103 Kan. 829, 177 P. 359; Riley v. Riederer, 144 Kan. 422, 61 P.2d 106. the propriety of the court's ruling on appellants' motion of November 6, 1936, which was made on December 12, 1936, is not now......