The Atchison v. Leeman
| Citation | 5 Kan.App. 804,48 P. 932 |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1897 |
| Docket Number | 238 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
| Parties | THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY v. J. H. LEEMAN |
May 20 1897.
Error from Kearny District Court. Hon. A. J. Abbott, Judge. Motion to dismiss denied.
No brief filed for either party.
On October 8, 1895, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in error. Hon. A. J. Abbott was then the regular judge of the twenty-seventh judicial district which embraced Kearny County, and presided at the trial. In view of the fact that said county would, on October 15, 1895 become a part of the thirty-second judicial district according to the provisions of chapter 106, laws of 1895 after which date the twenty-seventh district would cease to exist, it was then agreed by counsel that the case should be continued for further proceedings until November 27; that court should adjourn until said date, and that Judge Abbott should sit in the case to its conclusion as judge pro tem. and do and perform all acts in said cause, including the settling and signing of the case-made, which he could do if the twenty-seventh district should not have been abolished, "and all and singular the things that the regular judge of the district court could do and perform." On November 27, the court convened pursuant to the adjournment which had been made according to the said agreement, and the case was concluded by Judge Abbott, as judge pro tem. The time for making and serving a case-made by defendant was thereupon extended by the court until January 27, 1896. On the latter date Judge Abbott further extended the time for making and serving the case-made for thirty days from that date.
Defendant in error has moved to dismiss these proceedings, the principal ground of his motion being that a judge pro tem. has no power to extend the time for making and serving a case-made except while he is holding court. We think this motion must be sustained, in view of the construction of section 549 of the Code, given by our Supreme Court in Hulme v. Diffenbacher (53 Kan. 181, 36 P. 60).
The power to extend the time for making and serving a case-made resides with the court when in session, whether presided over by the regular district judge or by a judge pro tem., and with the district judge who is in fact in possession of the office. While holding court the powers of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rasberry v. State
...This disposes of the preliminary questions, and requires a consideration of the record before us." In Railway Co. v. Leeman; 5 Kan. App. 804, 48 P. 932, that said: "On October 8, 1895, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in error. Hon. A. J. Abbott was then th......
-
Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Columbia Mfg. Co.
... ... Medler, 18 Kan. 425; Railway Co. v. Corser, 31 ... Kan. 706, 3 P. 569; Railway Co. v. Wright, 53 Kan ... 272, 36 P. 331; Railroad Co. v. Leeman, 5 Kan.App ... 804, 48 P. 932; Waterfield v. Bank, 6 Kan.App. 743, ... 50 P. 971; Rhoades v. Rhoades, 6 Kan.App. 739, 50 P ... 972; Insurance ... ...
-
City of Shawnee v. Farrell
... ... time to make and serve a case-made for the Supreme Court ... after he has ceased to sit as a court. A., T. & S. F. Ry ... Co. v. Leeman, 5 Kan. App. 804, 48 P. 932; A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McClure, 5 Kan. App. 882, 48 P. 1117; ... Hulme et al. v. Diffenbacher, 53 Kan. 181, 36 P ... ...
-
City of Shawnee v. Farrell
...extending the time to make and serve a case-made for the Supreme Court after he has ceased to sit as a court. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Leeman, 5 Kan. App. 804, 48 P. 932; A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McClure, 5 Kan. App. 882, 48 P. 1117; Hulme et al. v. Diffenbacher, 53 Kan. 181, 36 P. 60; Wa......