American Central Insurance v. Neff

Supreme Court of Kansas

American Central Insurance v. Neff

43 Kan. 457

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 15, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 Kan. 457 (American Central Insurance v. Neff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Central Insurance v. Neff, 43 Kan. 457 (kan 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Green, C.:

This action was commenced in the district court of Shawnee county in October, 1882, by the defendant in érror, to recover upon an insurance policy issued by the defendant below to J. R. Misserly, upon a store building in Wellington. The claim was made by the plaintiff below that Misserly and wife sold the property to him, and that he was the owner of the building, when the loss occurred. A trial was had upon the issues joined between the parties, on the 26th of June, 1884, before the Hon. John Martin, then district judge of Shawnee county. After all the testimony had been offered by the parties, the court instructed the jury that under the law and the evidence, the defendant was entitled to a verdict, which was accordingly rendered. Sub[458]*458sequently, and within the statutory time, the plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial; and about four years thereafter, and after the judge’s term had expired, the motion for a new trial was heard by the present judge of the district court of Shawnee county, and by him sustained; to which ruling of the court plaintiff in error excepted, and brings the record here for review.

There is but one question we can pass upon in this case, and that is, the ruling of, the court below in sustaining the motion for a new trial. While there is a case-made filed in this court, and signed by the present judge of the district court of Shawnee county, showing what took place before the motion for a new trial was passed upon, we can only consider the ruling of the court upon this one question, namely, the motion for a new trial. And in the light of the decision made by this court in the case of Bass v. Swingley, 42 Kas. 729, (22 Pac. Rep. 714,) the ruling of the court was correct.

We therefore recommend that the action of the court in granting a new trial be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Green, C.:

This action was commenced in the district court of Shawnee county in October, 1882, by the defendant in érror, to recover upon an insurance policy issued by the defendant below to J. R. Misserly, upon a store building in Wellington. The claim was made by the plaintiff below that Misserly and wife sold the property to him, and that he was the owner of the building, when the loss occurred. A trial was had upon the issues joined between the parties, on the 26th of June, 1884, before the Hon. John Martin, then district judge of Shawnee county. After all the testimony had been offered by the parties, the court instructed the jury that under the law and the evidence, the defendant was entitled to a verdict, which was accordingly rendered. Sub[458]*458sequently, and within the statutory time, the plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial; and about four years thereafter, and after the judge’s term had expired, the motion for a new trial was heard by the present judge of the district court of Shawnee county, and by him sustained; to which ruling of the court plaintiff in error excepted, and brings the record here for review.

There is but one question we can pass upon in this case, and that is, the ruling of, the court below in sustaining the motion for a new trial. While there is a case-made filed in this court, and signed by the present judge of the district court of Shawnee county, showing what took place before the motion for a new trial was passed upon, we can only consider the ruling of the court upon this one question, namely, the motion for a new trial. And in the light of the decision made by this court in the case of Bass v. Swingley, 42 Kas. 729, (22 Pac. Rep. 714,) the ruling of the court was correct.

We therefore recommend that the action of the court in granting a new trial be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Kan. 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-central-insurance-v-neff-kan-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack