Roper v. Ferris

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtGREEN, C.:
Citation29 P. 1146,48 Kan. 583
PartiesCHARLES ROPER et al. v. MARY C. FERRIS
Decision Date01 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
2 practice notes
  • Gale v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 35963.]
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 22, 1944
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 1, 1892
    ...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......
2 cases
  • Gale v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 35963.]
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 22, 1944
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 1, 1892
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT