The Coffeyville Gas Company v. Dooley, 14,466

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation73 Kan. 758,84 P. 719
PartiesTHE COFFEYVILLE GAS COMPANY v. H. C. DOOLEY et al., as Partners, etc
Decision Date10 February 1906
Docket Number14,466

84 P. 719

73 Kan. 758

THE COFFEYVILLE GAS COMPANY
v.

H. C. DOOLEY et al., as Partners, etc

No. 14,466

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 10, 1906


Decided, January, 1906.

Error from Montgomery district court; THOMAS J. FLANNELLY, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Ziegler & Dana, and Montgomery & Montgomery, for plaintiff in error.

S. H. Piper, and S. J. Osborn, for defendants in error.

OPINION

Per Curiam

The defendants in error brought this action to recover for legal services alleged to have been performed by them for the Coffeyville Gas Company upon its request. The defendant as an answer filed [73 Kan. 759] its general denial. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs.

The petition in error does not assign as error the denying of the defendant's motion for a new trial; therefore no questions arising upon the trial of the cause can be considered by this court. (Struthers v. Fuller, 45 Kan. 735, 26 P. 471; Dryden v. C. K. & N. Rly. Co., 47 Kan. 445, 28 P. 153; National [84 P. 720] Bank v. Jaffray,, 41 Kan. 691, 19 P. 626; Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 P. 327; Binns v. Adams, 54 Kan. 615, 38 P. 792; Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 Kan. 448, 28 P. 154; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129, 23 P. 109.)

The errors assigned raise questions arising upon the trial and cannot be considered by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Gale v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 35963.]
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 22 Enero 1944
    ...of plaintiff's motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error. Roper v. Ferris, 48 Kan. 583, 29 P. 1146; Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Brewer v. Harris, 147 Kan. 197, 75 P.2d 287; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717, 121 P.2d 196. In view of the foregoing it is difficult to ......
  • Heniff v. Clausen, 35393.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 24 Enero 1942
    ...waived any objection he ever had to that ruling. No question respecting that ruling is before this court for review. Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Bennett v. National Supply Co., 80 Kan. 437, 102 P. 511; Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190, 114 P. 372, and cases cit......
  • Palmer v. Helmer, 36283.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 7 Abril 1945
    ...waived any objection he ever had to that ruling. No question respecting that ruling is before this court for review. Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Bennett v. [National] Supply Co., 80 Kan. 437, 102 P. 511; Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190, 114 P. 372, * * *.' In ......
  • Green v. State Highway Commission, No. 41276
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 11 Abril 1959
    ...the overruling of a motion for a new trial is not specified as error, trial errors will not be reviewed. See, e. g., Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Brewer v. Harris, 147 Kan. 197, 75 P.2d 287; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717, 121 P.2d 196; Palmer v. Helmer, 159 Kan. 647, 157 P.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Gale v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 35963.]
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 22 Enero 1944
    ...of plaintiff's motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error. Roper v. Ferris, 48 Kan. 583, 29 P. 1146; Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Brewer v. Harris, 147 Kan. 197, 75 P.2d 287; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717, 121 P.2d 196. In view of the foregoing it is difficult to ......
  • Heniff v. Clausen, 35393.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 24 Enero 1942
    ...waived any objection he ever had to that ruling. No question respecting that ruling is before this court for review. Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Bennett v. National Supply Co., 80 Kan. 437, 102 P. 511; Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190, 114 P. 372, and cases cit......
  • Palmer v. Helmer, 36283.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 7 Abril 1945
    ...waived any objection he ever had to that ruling. No question respecting that ruling is before this court for review. Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Bennett v. [National] Supply Co., 80 Kan. 437, 102 P. 511; Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190, 114 P. 372, * * *.' In ......
  • Green v. State Highway Commission, No. 41276
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 11 Abril 1959
    ...the overruling of a motion for a new trial is not specified as error, trial errors will not be reviewed. See, e. g., Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758, 84 P. 719; Brewer v. Harris, 147 Kan. 197, 75 P.2d 287; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717, 121 P.2d 196; Palmer v. Helmer, 159 Kan. 647, 157 P.2......
  • 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