Roper v. Ferris
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Writing for the Court | GREEN, C.: |
| Citation | 29 P. 1146,48 Kan. 583 |
| Parties | CHARLES ROPER et al. v. MARY C. FERRIS |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1892 |
29 P. 1146
48 Kan. 583
CHARLES ROPER et al.
v.
MARY C. FERRIS
Supreme Court of Kansas
January 1, 1892
Error from Washington District Court.
THE opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
Joseph G. Lowe, for plaintiffs in error.
Omar Powell, for defendant in error.
GREEN, C. All the Justices concurring.
OPINION [29 P. 1147]
[48 Kan. 584] GREEN, C.:
The plaintiffs in error in this case ask a reversal of the judgment of the district court of Washington county, upon seven assignments of error, all of which, as is alleged, occurred during the trial; but the overruling of the motion for a new trial is not assigned as error. This is necessary to have such assignments of error considered in this court. ( Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 P. 645; Clark v. Schnur, 40 id. 72; Carson v. Funk, 27 id. 524.)
The judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
All the Justices concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gale v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 35963.]
...to support the judgment since the overruling of plaintiff's motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error. Roper v. Ferris, 48 Kan. 583, 29 P. 1146; Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Brewer v. Harris, 147 Kan. 197, 75 P.2d 287; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717, 121 P.2d 196.......
-
McKey v. Lauflin
...were treated as if the issues had been properly made, and we do not think the plaintiffs in error can now object to the petition. [48 Kan. 583] It is true that the defendant in the original replevin suit had a right to have his title to the property tried, notwithstanding the dismissal by t......
-
Gale v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 35963.]
...to support the judgment since the overruling of plaintiff's motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error. Roper v. Ferris, 48 Kan. 583, 29 P. 1146; Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Brewer v. Harris, 147 Kan. 197, 75 P.2d 287; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717, 121 P.2d 196.......
-
McKey v. Lauflin
...were treated as if the issues had been properly made, and we do not think the plaintiffs in error can now object to the petition. [48 Kan. 583] It is true that the defendant in the original replevin suit had a right to have his title to the property tried, notwithstanding the dismissal by t......