Rupp v. Rupp, 38199
| Decision Date | 03 July 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 38199,38199 |
| Citation | 171 Kan. 357,233 P.2d 709 |
| Parties | RUPP v. RUPP. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The determination of the weight and credence to be given oral evidence is exclusively the function of the trier of the facts and not a matter for appellate review.
2. Before this court will set aside the judgment of a trial court it must affirmatively appear there has been an error which affects the substantial rights of the parties.
3. In an action for the dissolution of a farming partnership and for an accounting, the record is examined and it is held the trial court did not err in any of the particulars alleged and in entering the judgment that it did.
Ralph H. Noah, Beloit, argued the cause, and Delmas L. Haney and Benedict P. Cruise, Hays, and Thomas H. Conroy Beloit, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
F. F. Wasinger, Hays, argued the cause, and Norbert R. Dreiling, Hays, was with him on the briefs for appellee.
This was an action brought by a son to dissolve a farming partnership existing between him and his father, and for an accounting, and is another chapter in litigation between these parties, Rupp v. Rupp, 170 Kan. 651, 228 P.2d 692.
Plaintiff son was the youngest of thirteen children and had stayed at home and worked on the 160 acre farm owned by his father and mother. His evidence, which followed substantially the allegations of his petition, established that in the latter part of 1943 he and his father entered into an oral agreement for the operation of the farm on a partnership basis; that he continued to work in the planting and harvesting of crops, raising of livestock, and in general to fulfill all obligations under the oral agreement. In August, 1944, he was inducted into the military service, and his testimony was to the effect that shortly before he left home he and his father orally agreed that during his absence the farming operations would continue on the partnership basis. During the period of his army service he made out and caused to be sent home an allotment to his parents, and he also earned certain sums on the side while in the service. Evidence was introduced concerning the application of these funds to the partnership venture. The son was in the military service for twenty-two months, after which he returned home and resumed work on the farm. This arrangement continued until August, 1949, at which time trouble and difficulties arose between him and his father, following which this action was commenced.
Defendant father's answer and evidence admitted a partnership arrangement and agreement between the parties, but was to the effect the partnership was not formed or agreed upon until 1946, after the son's return from the military service; and also there was a sharp conflict in the evidence concerning who had sold certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Tucker
...and credence to be given the oral testimony of the witnesses, which is an exclusive function of the trier of the facts. Rupp v. Rupp, 171 Kan. 357, 233 P.2d 709. The general finding made by the trier of the facts determines every controverted question of fact in support of which evidence ha......
-
B & S Enterprises, Inc. v. Rudd
...to be given oral evidence is exclusively the function of the trier of the facts and not a matter of appellate review. Rupp v. Rupp, 171 Kan. 357, 233 P.2d 709. Turning to plaintiff's claims of error it is first urged the trial court abused its discretion in upholding the report of the commi......
-
Community of Woodston v. State Corp. Commission
...to do so (In re Wright, 74 Kan. 406, 409, 86 P. 460, 89 P. 678; Donaldson v. Cox, 103 Kan. 791, 176 P. 647). See, also, Rupp v. Rupp, 171 Kan. 357, 233 P.2d 709, and 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, §§ 923, 924, pp. 489, The appellants seek to justify their claim that the order was unreasonable......
-
Martin v. Hunter
...231, 65 P.2d 308; Tucker v. Hankey, 173 Kan. 593, 250 P.2d 784; In re Estate of Beeler, 175 Kan. 190, 194, 262 P.2d 939; Rupp v. Rupp, 171 Kan. 357, 233 P.2d 709. Under the record in this case it was established that the relationship of joint adventurers existed between plaintiffs and defen......