Breneman v. Burr

46 P. 968, 5 Kan. App. 733, 1896 Kan. App. LEXIS 321
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedDecember 1, 1896
DocketNo. 102
StatusPublished

This text of 46 P. 968 (Breneman v. Burr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Breneman v. Burr, 46 P. 968, 5 Kan. App. 733, 1896 Kan. App. LEXIS 321 (kanctapp 1896).

Opinion

Johnson, P. J.

The Supreme Court of this State has held in a number of cases that the absence of a party to a judgment, who will necessarily be prejudicially affected by the reversal or modification of the judgment, defeats the jurisdiction of the court, and there can be no review of the judgment or any part thereof unless the parties to be prejudicially affected thereby are brought before the court. Loan Co. v. Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 ; McPherson v. Storch, 49 id. 313; Paper Co. v. Hentig, 31 id. 322; Paving Co. v. [734]*734Botsford, 50 id. 331; Bain v. Insurance Co., 3 Kan. App. 346.

The failure to bring into this court all parties affected by this judgment compels us to allow the motion to dismiss.

The case is dismissed and the plaintiff adjudged to pay the costs in this court.

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

Related

Bain v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
40 P. 817 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1895)
Central Kansas Loan & Investment Co. v. Chicago Lumber Co.
53 Kan. 677 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 P. 968, 5 Kan. App. 733, 1896 Kan. App. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breneman-v-burr-kanctapp-1896.