St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Corser

• Decision Date: 07 April 1884
• Citation: 31 Kan. 705,3 P. 569
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: THE ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY v. M. M. CORSER AND WM. POWELL

3 P. 569

31 Kan. 705

THE ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY v. M. M. CORSER AND WM. POWELL

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 7, 1884

Error from Montgomery District Court.

ACTION by Corser and another against The Railway Company, to recover damages for the destruction by fire of twenty-four tons of hay, twenty-five acres of corn and eleven apple trees belonging to plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs for $ 178 September 21, 1882. The defendant brings the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Case dismissed.

John O'Day, and S. S. Kirkpatrick, for plaintiff in error.

J. D McCue, for defendants in error.

HORTON C. J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

HORTON, C. J.:

On the 25th day of February, 1881, the defendants in error commenced this action before a justice of the peace in Montgomery county by filing with the justice a bill of particulars. Judgment was rendered by the justice in their favor. The railway company took the case to the district court of Montgomery county on appeal. Trial had at the September term of the court for 1882. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants in error for the sum of $ 178. Judgment was rendered thereon. The railway company has attempted to bring the proceedings here in a case-made, and the sufficiency of this case-made is challenged by the defendants in error. The judgment was entered September 21, 1882, and forty days from that date were given to the company in which to make and serve a case for this court. The defendants in error were allowed twenty days after the service of the case to suggest amendments. On the 26th day of October, 1882, the time for making and serving the case was extended by the judge at chambers to November 25, 1882, and the defendants in error were allowed twenty days after the service of the case to suggest their amendments. On November 25, 1882, the time for making and serving the case was extended to December 5, 1882. In the last order, no time for suggesting amendments was mentioned. The case was served on November 30, 1882, but defendants in error did not suggest or serve any amendments until sometime in February, 1883. The term of the district judge who tried the case expired on January 8, 1883. The case was signed and settled on the 19th day of February, 1883, after the trial judge was out of office.

It is urged, among other reasons, that it is only when the term of the trial judge expires before the time fixed for making or settling and signing a case, that such trial judge is authorized to settle and sign the same. The provisions of the section applicable read "In all cases heretofore or hereafter tried, when the term of office of the trial judge shall have expired or may hereafter expire during the time fixed for making or settling and signing a case, it shall be his duty to certify, sign and settle the case in all respects as if his term had not expired." (Code, § 449.) In this case the term of office of the trial judge did not expire until after the time fixed for making a case. Even if the defendants below had twenty days after December 5 in which to suggest amendments -- which is doubtful -- the term of the trial judge did not expire until some time after that. The jurisdiction of the judge to settle the case is a special and limited jurisdiction, which only arises at times and under circumstances specified by law. (Weeks v. Medler, 18 Kan. 425.) The statute has made special provision for the signing and settling of cases by the trial judge after the expiration of his term of office, when his term of office shall expire during the time fixed for making or settling and signing a case, and he cannot act in any other way, or under any other circumstances, than those named in the statute. As the term of office of the...