The Northrup National Bank v. The Webster Refining Company
| Decision Date | 07 June 1913 |
| Docket Number | 17,961 |
| Citation | 132 P. 832,89 Kan. 738 |
| Parties | THE NORTHRUP NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. THE WEBSTER REFINING COMPANY et al. (The AEtna Oil and Gas Company et al., Appellees) |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1913.
Appeal from Allen district court.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
APPEAL--Report of Referee--Judgment--Motion for New Trial Necessary. To entitle an appellant to a review of a judgment based upon the report of a referee and to attack the findings of fact it is necessary that a motion for a new trial should have been filed in the trial court.
S. A. Gard, and Baxter D. McClain, both of Iola, for the appellant.
G. A. Amos, of Humboldt, for the appellees.
The several assignments of error in this case are that the court erred in approving findings of fact made by the referee and the conclusion of law drawn therefrom. No motion for new trial was filed.
Where a referee is appointed to take the evidence and report the facts in an action, the evidence is usually taken out of court and in the absence of the judge. In such case the court does not review the evidence, but renders judgment in accordance with the report of the referee unless objection thereto is made, and error can not be here predicated upon a judgment involving the correctness of the facts found as shown by such report, unless a motion for new trial has been filed and overruled. Section 305 of the code of civil procedure makes the same provision for a new trial where a judgment is based upon the report of a referee as when based upon the verdict of a jury or a decision of the court.
This court has no jurisdiction to determine the facts, but if it is claimed that the report of the referee of the facts, or of any material fact involved, is contrary to the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence, and the attention of the trial court has been challenged thereto by a proper motion for a new trial and such motion has been overruled, then the party against whom such ruling is made is entitled to a review of the case in this court.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morton v. Morton Realty Co.
... ... MORTON, Respondent, v. MORTON REALTY COMPANY, a Corporation, FOSTER CRANE and F. R. GOODING, ... Zubler, supra; ... First Nat. Bank v. McClellan , 9 N. M. 636, 58 P ... 347.)An ... 20, 18 Okl. 243, 90 P. 431; Northrup Nat. Bank v. Webster ... Refining Co., 91 Kan ... Greenleaf , 294 F. 467. See, also, National Bank of ... Commerce v. Equitable Trust Co ., ... ...
-
State v. The Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
...not to be necessary to show that this is the law in this state, but quotations from some authorities are set out. In Bank v. Refining Co., 89 Kan. 738, 132 P. 832, court said: "To entitle an appellant to a review of a judgment based upon the report of a referee and to attack the findings of......
-
Potts v. Lux
...by a referee must be computed from the time the report is filed.' The rule seems to have been first stated in Northrup Nat. Bank v. Refining Co., 89 Kan. 738, 132 P. 832. There we 'Where a referee is appointed to take the evidence and report the facts in an action, the evidence is usually t......
-
Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Tiernan
... ... Company for $64,826.87 and interest from that date Robert ... 174, 179, 180, 150 P. 576; Bank v ... Refining Co., 89 Kan. 738, 132 P. 832), ... The practice and proceedings of the national ... courts, both appellate and trial, relating ... ...