Stout v. Baker
| Decision Date | 13 June 1884 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | HIRAM STOUT v. S. S. BAKER, Sheriff, &c |
Error from Kingman District Court.
REPLEVIN by Stout against Baker, as sheriff of Kingman county. Judgment for defendant at the April Term, 1883. Plaintiff brings the case to this court. The opinion contains the material facts.
Judgment affirmed.
John E Lydecker, and Misner & Patten, for plaintiff in error.
Gillett & Raymond, for defendant in error.
OPINION
Devier and Blackburn recovered a judgment in the district court of Kingman county, on the 23d day of October, 1882, against Stout & Wingert, by their partnership name, for $ 90.74 and costs of suit. Execution was issued on this judgment to the defendant in error, as sheriff of Kingman county, under which he levied on and took into his possession the buggy in controversy in this suit.
On the trial the justice of the peace rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the buggy and costs of suit. The defendant appealed from the judgment to the district court of Kingman county.
At the April term, 1883, of the said district court, the cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the court made general findings in these words:
"The court, after hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, does find that the right of property and of possession thereof as set out in the plaintiff's petition, was in the defendant at the commencement of the action, and that the value thereof was one hundred dollars."
And then rendered judgment on these findings against the plaintiff, for the return of the property in dispute to the defendant, and if return could not be had, then for its value in the sum of one hundred dollars and costs.
The plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he made his case for this court, and brings the cause here by petition in error. He brings up a record of all the evidence and proceedings in the cause.
The plaintiff below excepted to the overruling of his motion for a new trial, but took no exception to the findings or judgment. The findings and judgment are fully warranted by the evidence, and we are unable to see how the court could have made any different findings, on the evidence presented. The plaintiff in error in his brief, presents two points for a reversal of the judgment. The first is, that the court erred in admitting evidence over his objections. The only evidence we can find in the record, objected to, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berkley v. Tootle
... ... that no action to revive a dormant judgment can be maintained ... in Missouri. St. Louis Type Foundry Co. v. Jackson, ... 128 Mo. 128; Baker v. Stonebraker's Admrs., 36 ... Mo. 338. (2) While it is true that statutes of limitation ... merely affecting the remedy do not have force outside ... separately. [2 Gen. Stat. Kan. 1897, ch. 114, p. 590; ... Read v. Jeffries, 16 Kan. 534; Stout v ... Baker, 32 Kan. 113, 4 P. 141.] And in considering this ... case the judgment in question may be treated simply as a ... joint and several ... ...
-
City of Overland Park v. Cunningham
...a specific objection. "The general rule is, that objections to evidence must state specifically the grounds of the objection." Stout v. Baker, Sheriff, 32 Kan. 113, Syl. p 1, 4 Pac. 141 (1884). What remains of the City's contention is how specific must a specific objection "Endless cases di......
-
Berkley v. Tootle
...against either of the judgment debtors separately. 2 Gen. St. Kan. 1897, c. 114, p. 590; Read v. Jeffries, 16 Kan. 534; Stout v. Baker, 32 Kan. 113, 4 Pac. 141. And in considering this case the judgment in question may be treated simply as a joint and several judgment against the appellants......
-
Wood v. Carter
...properly overruled. Partners are jointly, as well as severally, liable for partnership debts. Pars. Partn. (4th Ed.) p. 249; Stout v. Baker, 32 Kan. 113, 4 Pac. 141. The action was, therefore, rightfully brought in Sheridan county, where one of the parties, properly a defendant thereto, was......