Schmatjen v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 11 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 43599,43599 |
| Citation | 192 Kan. 807,391 P.2d 313 |
| Parties | Carl L. SCHMATJEN d/b/a Carl's Liquid Feed Service, Appellee, v. J. T. ALEXANDER, Appellant, and Donald Alexander, Defendant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In reviewing the propriety of an order sustaining a motion for a directed verdict, the applicable rule, irrespective by whom invoked, is the same as that with respect to a demurrer to the evidence, that is--all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence are to be resolved in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. But where no evidence is presented, or the evidence presented is undisputed and is such that reasonable minds could not accept it as sufficient to establish the existence of a fact, it becomes the duty of the court to remove the issue from the jury.
2. In an action to recover for goods sold and delivered, the record is examined and it is held that defendant's evidence presented no issue of fact for submission to the jury, and plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence was properly sustained.
Harold S. Herd, Coldwater, for appellant.
Donald E. Shultz, Dodge City, for appellee.
This was an action to recover the price of liquid cattle feed sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendants. Defendant Donald Alexander's demurrer to plaintiff's evidence was sustained. The action proceeded against the other defendant, J. T. Alexander. At the close of all the evidence, upon plaintiff's motion, the court directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and judgment was entered accordingly. Defendant J. T. Alexander has appealed from that ruling.
The pleadings require only brief mention. The petition alleged that between May and December of 1961 plaintiff sold and delivered the liquid cattle feed to defendant at an agreed price, and an itemized account showing the amount of sales and the balance due was attached thereto. The answer, although admitting the sales, raised certain alleged breaches of the agreement between the parties as a partial defense, and also claimed certain credits by way of set-off.
The action proceeded to trial before a jury, and, as above stated, the court, at the conclusion of all the evidence, sustained plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict.
Questions involving a ruling on a motion for a directed verdict usually arise in an appeal by a defendant from an order denying his motion for a directed verdict, or else in an appeal by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Furstenberg v. Wesley Medical Center
... ... (Schmatjen v. Alexander, 192 Kan. 807, 391 ... P.2d 313; Brown v. East Side National Bank, 196 Kan. 372, 411 P.2d 605.) Plaintiff also stresses the point ... ...
-
Bingham v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc., 44727
...Life Ins. Co., 195 Kan. 579, 408 P.2d 631; First National Bank in Dodge City v. Keller, 193 Kan. 581, 396 P.2d 304; Schmatjen v. Alexander, 192 Kan. 807, 391 P.2d 313.) Defendant first contends the trial court erred in not sustaining defendant's motions for the reason the evidence failed to......
-
Brown v. East Side Nat. Bank of Wichita, 44359
...with reason and justice, the matter becomes a question of law for the court's determination.' (Syl. 5. See, also, Schmatjen v. Alexander, 192 Kan. 807, 391 P.2d 313.) An examination of the record discloses no trial errors justifying the granting of a new The judgment is affirmed. Approved b......