Booth v. Williams

Supreme Court of Kansas

Booth v. Williams

115 P. 592, 84 Kan. 883, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 436

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 6, 1911

DocketNo. 17,083

StatusPublished

This text of 115 P. 592 (Booth v. Williams) 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

Booth v. Williams, 115 P. 592, 84 Kan. 883, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 436 (kan 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The right of the court to make its record speak the truth and the whole truth at any time, even after appeal, is too well established in this state to require further vindication.

The proceedings of April 2 and April 19 resulted in a consent judgment which binds the appellant up to that point. It would be very strange if a party, after appearing and agreeing in open court to the final disposition of a controversy in-a certain way, could thereafter question previous steps taken in the case.

When the last motion came up for hearing the appellant’s attorney consented that the attorney for the appellee should state the facts relating to the proceedings and transactions between the parties. The statement made the whole matter clear and completely disposed of the grounds of the motion. Not only did the appellant not offer to dispute the statement but his chief counsel admitted it to be true. That ended the controversy.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The right of the court to make its record speak the truth and the whole truth at any time, even after appeal, is too well established in this state to require further vindication.

The proceedings of April 2 and April 19 resulted in a consent judgment which binds the appellant up to that point. It would be very strange if a party, after appearing and agreeing in open court to the final disposition of a controversy in-a certain way, could thereafter question previous steps taken in the case.

When the last motion came up for hearing the appellant’s attorney consented that the attorney for the appellee should state the facts relating to the proceedings and transactions between the parties. The statement made the whole matter clear and completely disposed of the grounds of the motion. Not only did the appellant not offer to dispute the statement but his chief counsel admitted it to be true. That ended the controversy.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 P. 592, 84 Kan. 883, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booth-v-williams-kan-1911.