Westheimer v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 08 December 1888 |
| Parties | SAMUEL WESTHEIMER v. C. A. COOPER et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Rice District Court.
THE opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
M. A Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
J. H Bailey, for defendants in error.
OPINION
This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Rice county, by the plaintiff in error, who was a wholesale liquor dealer in St. Joseph, Mo., against the defendants in error, who were parties doing business at Lyons, in said county. The trial before the justice resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants. The case was appealed to the district court, tried by a jury, with a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendants. There was the usual motion for a new trial, which was overruled and excepted to. Numerous errors are assigned, for which it is claimed the judgment ought to be reversed. The case was tried in the district court on the pleadings filed before the justice. The defendants in error pleaded that they had made a full, complete and final settlement with the plaintiff in error through his authorized attorneys, and adjusted all matters of difference between them, and had paid him an agreed sum, and held his receipt in full settlement of the account, and attached a copy of it as an exhibit to their answer, which was verified. This answer was filed on the 24th day of June, 1886, and the trial in the district court was held at the May term, 1887.
I. The first complaint is, that the trial court allowed the defendant Cooper to answer this question: "You may state if there was any dispute about these accounts." The witness answered, "Yes, sir; there was a dispute." The next question was: "Now you may state to the jury what this dispute was about; tell all there was connected with it." There is no possible objection to this mode of examination. The first question was but preliminary, and cannot be classed as a leading question.
II. The next complaint is founded on the refusal to strike out the evidence of defendant Cooper, that Fuller was authorized to make the settlement. The plaintiff in making his case had proved that Fuller was his authorized attorney to make the collection, and had been instructed to make a settlement on the basis of a payment of fifty cents on the dollar, so that if it was erroneous--and that is doubtful--it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dalton v. Hill
...it had that right, G.S.1935, 60-2933, and its action in doing so was largely discretionary, Bliss v. Carlson, 17 Kan. 325; Westheimer v. Cooper, 40 Kan. 370, 19 P. 852; Gurney v. Steffens, 56 Kan. 295, 43 P. 241. The granting of the stay amounted to nothing more than a continuance. Appellee......
-
Place v. Kansas State Highway Commission
...the burden cast upon a litigant who seeks a reversal of a trial court's ruling in denying such an application. Long ago in Westheimer v. Cooper, 40 Kan. 370, 19 P. 852, which we pause to note finds ample support in other jurisdictions, see 39 Am.Jur., New Trial, 194, § 195, 66 C.J.S., New T......
-
State v. Waldron
... ... commencement was any handicap to him in making his defense. ( ... Bliss v. Carlson, 17 Kan. 325; Moon v ... Helfer, 25 Kan. 139; Westheimer v. Cooper, 40 ... Kan. 370, 19 P. 852; Clouston v. Gray, 48 Kan. 31, ... 36, 28 P. 983; The State v. Sweet, 101 Kan. 746, ... 752, 168 P. 1112.) ... ...