Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Estes
| Decision Date | 08 October 1887 |
| Citation | 37 Kan. 229,15 P. 157 |
| Parties | THE UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM H. ESTES |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Wyandotte District Court.
THE opinion states the case.
J. P Usher, for plaintiff in error.
John A Hale, and J.O. Fipe, for defendant in error.
OPINION
The only question to be determined in this case is one of practice. The action was commenced by filing the petition in the district court of Wyandotte county, on the 2d day of February, 1885. On the 2d day of March the plaintiff in error (defendant below) filed a demurrer. The decision of the court overruling the demurrer was entered on the journal on the 29th day of April, 1885, "and the defendant allowed thirty days to answer." The petition in error, to reverse the ruling of the court below on the demurrer, was filed in this court on the 10th day of June, 1885. On the 17th day of May, 1885, the railway company filed an answer and the cause stood at issue until the April term, 1886, when the plaintiff amended his petition and a trial was had, which resulted in the disagreement of the jury. Thereupon, the plaintiff took leave to amend his petition, and on the 20th day of May, 1886, filed an amended petition, and on the 1st day of June thereafter the railway company filed its answer to this amended petition. A trial was had on the amended pleadings at the July term, 1886, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the railway company brings the case here for review; so that at this time the case is here on a petition in error to review the ruling on the demurrer, and another petition in error is filed to review the proceedings on the trial.
A party who seeks to have the ruling of the district court on a demurrer to the petition, reviewed in this court, must elect to stand on the demurrer and at once bring the case to this court; or, an answer may be filed, and when the case is finally tried, if it is tried on the original petition, and then brought to this court by the party demurring, the ruling on the demurrer will be passed on here. If, after an adverse ruling on a demurrer to the petition, the defendant files an answer, he cannot be permitted to file a petition in error in this court to reverse the adverse ruling; he must await the result of the final trial. When a demurrer to the petition has been overruled and the defendant answers, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grover Irrigation and Land Company v. Lovella Ditch, Reservoir and Irrigation Company
...St. 118 at 119; Coal & Car Co. v. Norman, 49 Ohio St. 598, 32 N.E. 857; O'Donohue v. Hendrix, 13 Neb. 255, 13 N.W. 215; U. P. Ry. Co. v. Estes, 37 Kan. 229, 15 P. 157; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Webster, 3 Kan.App. 106, 42 845; Cox v. Peoria Mfg. Co., 42 Neb. 660, 60 N.W. 933; Schofield v. Terr., ......
-
Bleakley v. Ux
...motion to quash amounts to the same thing as a demurrer to the petition. The first two authorities cited by petitioners, U. P. Rly. Co. v. Estes, 37 Kan. 229, 15 P. 157, Goodrich v. Comm'rs of Atchison Co., 47 Kan. 355, 27 P. 1006, 18 L. R. A. 113, expressly decide that where a demurrer to ......
-
King v. Millhaubt
... ... Kreipe, 14 ... Kan. 324; Briggs v. Tye, 16 Kan. 285; U. P. Rly ... Co. v. Estes, 37 Kan. 229, 231, 15 P. 157.) This matter ... would not now be considered, but for the fact that ... ...
-
Oklahoma ex rel. Taylor v. Caffrey
...v. McLean, [Dak.] 9 N.W. 98; Thornton v. Brady, 100 N.C. 38, 5 S.E. 910.) ¶5 The cases cited for defendant in error-- Railroad Co. v. Estes, 37 Kan. 229, 15 P. 157; Lott v. Railroad Co. 42 Kan. 293, 294, 21 P. 1070; Turner v. State, 45 Kan. 554, 26 P. 35--do not sustain defendant in error's......