The Coffeyville Gas Company v. Dooley
Citation | 73 Kan. 758,84 P. 719 |
Decision Date | 10 February 1906 |
Docket Number | 14,466 |
Parties | THE COFFEYVILLE GAS COMPANY v. H. C. DOOLEY et al., as Partners, etc |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Decided, January, 1906.
Error from Montgomery district court; THOMAS J. FLANNELLY, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Ziegler & Dana, and Montgomery & Montgomery, for plaintiff in error.
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 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 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-
Gale v. Fruehauf Trailer Co.
... ... § 201 et seq ... In an ... action against a trailer manufacturing company by the ... ex-foreman of a service department connected with its retail ... sales branch, to ... 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, ... ...
-
Heniff v. Clausen
...have 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, 102 511; Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190, 114 P. 372, and cases c......
-
McIntyre v. Dickinson
...court is firmly committed to it. See a long line of cases dealing with the point. 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; and Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717, 121 P.2d A more recent case, McCarty v. Ka......
-
Palmer v. Helmer
... ... 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; ... ...