Benton v. Beakey

Supreme Court of Kansas

Benton v. Beakey

78 P. 410, 70 Kan. 881, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 79

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 5, 1904

DocketNo. 13,757

StatusPublished

This text of 78 P. 410 (Benton v. Beakey) 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

Benton v. Beakey, 78 P. 410, 70 Kan. 881, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 79 (kan 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Guriam:

The only material questions presented herein for review arise upon rulings on the evidence and whether it is sufficient to sustain the special findings requested and made. These cannot be reviewed unless the evidence which was considered by the district court is included in the record. While there is a statement at the end of the record that all the evidence is preserved, it appears that a power of attorney, at least, which was before the trial court, is omitted. The absent document is manifestly material, and since all the evidence is not here questions as to its sufficiency are not open to our consideration. (M. K. & T. Rld. Co. v. Williamson, 58 Kan. 814, 49 Pac. 157; Wertz v. Albrecht, 58 id. 576, 50 Pac 500.)

Before this omission was sharply brought to our attention we examined the objections of the plaintiff in error and discovered, no material error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Guriam:

The only material questions presented herein for review arise upon rulings on the evidence and whether it is sufficient to sustain the special findings requested and made. These cannot be reviewed unless the evidence which was considered by the district court is included in the record. While there is a statement at the end of the record that all the evidence is preserved, it appears that a power of attorney, at least, which was before the trial court, is omitted. The absent document is manifestly material, and since all the evidence is not here questions as to its sufficiency are not open to our consideration. (M. K. & T. Rld. Co. v. Williamson, 58 Kan. 814, 49 Pac. 157; Wertz v. Albrecht, 58 id. 576, 50 Pac 500.)

Before this omission was sharply brought to our attention we examined the objections of the plaintiff in error and discovered, no material error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 P. 410, 70 Kan. 881, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-v-beakey-kan-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack