The Bank of Santa Fe v. Hussey

• Decision Date: 19 November 1897
• Docket Number: 171
• Parties: THE BANK OF SANTA FE, by Treadwell C. Coffman, Receiver, v. W. H. HUSSEY, County Clerk, et al
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

50 P. 977

6 Kan.App. 893

THE BANK OF SANTA FE, by Treadwell C. Coffman, Receiver, v. W. H. HUSSEY, County Clerk, et al

No. 171

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, Western Division

November 19, 1897

November 19, 1897,

Error from Haskell District Court. Hon. Wm. Easton Hutchison Judge. Dismissed.

Case dismissed.

Milton Brown, for plaintiff in error.

A. J Hoskinson, for defendants in error.

OPINION

SCHOONOVER, J.

The plaintiff in error commenced an action in the District Court of Haskell County, Kansas, for injunction. The case was tried by the court and the injunction denied. The case is here upon a transcript.

The right to a review in this court is now challenged on account of the insufficiency of the record. It is contended that the transcript attached to the petition in error is not shown by the certificate of the clerk to be a full, true and complete transcript of the record and proceedings in the District Court. The certificate is as follows:

"State of Kansas, Haskell County, ss.

I, A A. Barlow, Clerk of the Haskell County District Court, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing transcript is a true and correct transcript and copy of the undertaking for injunction, the journal entry of temporary injunction, the amended petition, the answer of the Kern-Rosenthall Investment Company, the findings of fact and conclusions of law and exceptions allowed by the court, the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and the journal entry showing the final judgment rendered in the action of the Bank of Santa Fe, by Treadwell C. Coffman, Receiver, v. W. H. Hussey, County Clerk of Haskell County, Kansas, and the Kern-Rosenthall Investment Company, and being action number 450 of the Haskell County District Court, as appears by the files and records of said court, and in my custody.

"In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said court, at Santa Fe, Haskell County, Kansas, on this thirtieth day of March, A. D. 1894."

In the case of Westbrook v. Schmaus (51 Kan. 214, 32 P. 892), the certificate of the clerk reads as follows:

"Is a full, true and correct copy of certain proceedings had in said court in the case therein entitled, as the same appears of record in my office."

Mr Justice Johnston in the opinion says:

"The certificate fails to show that the record contains a complete transcript of the proceedings in the cause. Nothing short of a full transcript of all the proceedings is sufficient, and that it is a complete transcript must appear from the certificate of the clerk."

In the case of Byers v. Leavenworth Lodge (54 Kan. 321, 38 P. 302), the Supreme Court says:

"The clerk could have certified, if such were the case, in two or three lines, that the transcript to which he attached his name was 'a true, full and complete transcript of the proceedings in the case, as the same appears of record in my office.' He did not do this. Instead thereof, he certified 'that the transcript contained a true, full and complete copies' of certain pleadings, motions, entries, etc. His certificate does not show that these were all the records and proceedings that should have been certified to this court in the transcript."

In the case of Cook v. Challiss (55 Kan. 363, 40 P. 643), the following certificate was considered:

"I Charles S. Albright, clerk of the District Court within and for the county of Atchison and State of Kansas, do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be full, true and complete copies of the papers therein mentioned; that the...