Schubach v. Hammer

Decision Date07 February 1925
Docket Number25,253
PartiesGEORGE W. SCHUBACH, Appellant, v. FRANK HAMMER, THOMAS E. PIGOTT, et al., Appellees
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided January, 1925

Appeal from Johnson district court; JABEZ O. RANKIN, judge.

Case reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. PRACTICE--Demurrer to Evidence Sustained--Ruling is Appealable--No Motion for New Trial Necessary. An order sustaining a demurrer to evidence is a ruling on a question of law. It is an appealable order, and a motion for a new trial is neither necessary nor proper.

2. SAME--Court Has Control Over Its Judgments During Term When Made. A court has full control over its judgments during the term at which they are made, and may upon sufficient cause shown, in the exercise of its sound discretion, vacate or set them aside.

3. SAME--Courts Control Over Judgments After Term at Which Rendered. The only power a court has to set aside a judgment after the term at which it is rendered is that given to it by statute.

S. D Scott, of Olathe, Charles A. Blair, Edwin S. McAnany, Maurice L. Alden, and Thomas M. Van Cleave, all of Kansas City, for the appellant.

J. W Parker, G. A. Roberds, both of Olathe, O. H. Swearingen, and Allan T. Finnell, both of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellees.

OPINION

HARVEY, J.:

This is a suit on a note for $ 1,000 and to foreclose a mortgage on real estate given to secure the note. The petition contained the usual allegations, among them, that the note and mortgage were made to Pettyjohn & Co., that before maturity and for value Pettyjohn & Co. sold the same to plaintiff, indorsed the note and assigned the mortgage in writing, which assignment was duly recorded. The answer did not controvert the execution of the note and mortgage and their indorsement and assignment to plaintiff, but pleaded payment and averred that Pettyjohn & Co. was agent of plaintiff to receive such payment, and further that plaintiff had, by a course of conduct which was set out, held Pettyjohn & Co. out as his agent and was thereby estopped to deny the same. The alleged agency and acts constituting estoppel were denied in a verified reply. When the case came on for trial the court properly held that the burden of proof was upon the defendants, and they introduced their evidence and rested. The plaintiff demurred to defendants' evidence. The court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for plaintiff. This was on September 15, 1922, at the September term of the court. No appeal has been taken from that judgment. On the next day the defendants filed a motion for a new trial upon all the statutory grounds. This motion was not ruled upon until May 3, 1923, when it was sustained generally. At that time, the September, 1922, term of court had expired, the January, 1923, term had convened and expired, and the May, 1923, term had convened (R. S. 20-1010).

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment and order of the court of May 3, 1923, sustaining defendants' motion for a new trial, and contends that the court had no jurisdiction at that time to sustain the motion. It is argued, that a demurrer to evidence does not raise a question of fact, but a question of law only; that when such a demurrer is sustained and judgment rendered a motion for a new trial is neither necessary nor proper; that the right of the defeated party is by appeal, and that the filing of a motion for a new trial by the defeated party does not give the court jurisdiction at a subsequent term of court to set aside the order sustaining the demurrer to the evidence and the judgment rendered thereon. This argument is well taken and is determinative of this appeal.

In passing upon a demurrer to the evidence the court does not weigh the evidence, but determines as a question of law whether the evidence, considered in the aspect most favorable to the party offering it--and this is, of course, upon whom is the burden of proof, whether that be the plaintiff or the defendant--is sufficient to support a verdict or judgment. (Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 Kan. 283, syl. P 2; 85 P. 299; White v. Railway Co., 74 Kan. 778, syl P 2, 88 P. 54; Sheets v. Henderson, 77 Kan. 761, 93 P. 577; Van Tuyl v. Morrow, 77 Kan. 849, 92 P. 303; Sarbach v. Deposit Co., 87 Kan. 774, 125 P. 63; Moore v. Annuity Association, 93 Kan. 398, 404, 148 P. 981; Sheahan v. Kansas City, 102 Kan. 252, syl. P 1, 169 P. 957; Sampson v. Vanderwilt, 103 Kan. 199, 173 P. 297.)

It is the same kind of a question of law that arises upon a demurrer to a pleading, upon a motion for judgment upon the pleadings, or upon a motion for judgment upon the pleadings and the opening statement of counsel. (Slimmer v. Rice, 99 Kan. 99, 160 P. 984; Berggren v. Johnson, 105 Kan. 501, 504, 185 P. 291.) The same ruling applies when the facts are agreed to (Nichols v. Trueman, 80 Kan. 89, 101 P. 633), or are not disputed (Bowen v. Wilson, 93 Kan. 351, 144 P. 251). In none of these instances is a motion for a new trial either necessary or proper. The remedy of the defeated party is by appeal.

Perhaps it is illogical not to apply the same rule to an instructed verdict (Darling v. Railway Co., 76 Kan. 893, 903, 93 P. 612), but that holding was upon an interpretation of the statute to the effect that an instructed verdict is nevertheless a verdict. But we do not have a directed verdict in this case.

A ruling on the demurrer to the evidence is an appealable order. (R. S. 60-3302.) Alleged error in a ruling upon a demurrer to the evidence is not available on an appeal taken only from a ruling upon a motion for a new trial. (Ball v. Collins, 100 Kan. 448, 165 P. 273.)

The district court, being a court of general jurisdiction retains such control of its judgments during the term at which they are rendered as to be able...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Hoffman v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 10 Abril 1943
    ......754, 761, 89 P.2d 859; Revere v. Revere, 133 Kan. 300, 302, 299 P. 595; Heston v. Finley, 118 Kan. 717, 720, 236 P. 841; Schubach v. Hammer, 117 Kan. 615, 232 P. 1041; Moore v. McPherson, 106 Kan. 268, 273, 274, 187 P. 884;. Mulcahy v. City of Moline, 101 Kan. 532, 534, ......
  • Smith v. Fremont Contract Carriers, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 9 Noviembre 1984
    ...Valley Public Power and Irrigation District, 147 Neb. 375, 23 N.W.2d 335 (1946). This is a rule of the common law. Schubach v. Hammer, 117 Kan. 615, 232 P. 1041 (1925); 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 229 (1947). That rule does not apply to statutory tribunals such as the compensation However, this d......
  • Gaston v. Collins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 9 Octubre 1937
    ...... which they are rendered except in accordance with some. pertinent provision of statute or by the mandate of a higher. court on appeal. Schubach v. Hammer, 117 Kan. 615,. 232 P. 1041; Heston v. Pinley, 118 Kan. 717, 720,. 236 P. 841; Thornton v. Van Horn, 140 Kan. 568, 571,. 37 P.2d ......
  • Serena v. Rubin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 6 Noviembre 1937
    ...taken from orders sustaining demurrers to the evidence, White v. Railway Co., 74 Kan. 778, 88 P. 54, 11 Ann.Cas. 550; Schubach v. Hammer, 117 Kan. 615, 232 P. 1041; Security Finance Co. v. Hoyt, 143 Kan. 11, 53 P.2d 802. The remaining assignments of error can well be considered together, an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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