The Northrup National Bank v. The Webster Refining Company

• Decision Date: 07 June 1913
• Docket Number: 17,961
• Citation: The Northrup National Bank v. The Webster Refining Company, 132 P. 832, 89 Kan. 738 (Kan. 1913)
• 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

132 P. 832

89 Kan. 738

THE NORTHRUP NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. THE WEBSTER REFINING COMPANY et al. (The AEtna Oil and Gas Company et al., Appellees)

No. 17,961

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 7, 1913

Decided January, 1913.

Appeal from Allen district court.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

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.

OPINION

SMITH, J.:

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...