City of Topeka v. Pert

Supreme Court of Kansas

City of Topeka v. Pert

91 P. 1132, 77 Kan. 843, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 201

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 5, 1907

DocketNo. 15,113

StatusPublished

This text of 91 P. 1132 (City of Topeka v. Pert) 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

City of Topeka v. Pert, 91 P. 1132, 77 Kan. 843, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 201 (kan 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

No substantial error was committed in requiring the city to go to trial at the term the trial was had. Both parties mistakenly proceeded on the theory that the defendant was in default, but the demurrer of the city, which was filed by consent of the plaintiff, was adjudged to be frivolous, and hence the case then stood as if no demurrer had been filed. Neither the ruling on the demurrer nor that denying the motion for a continuance furnish ground for complaint. The time subsequently given for answer and preparation for trial was brief, but an examination of the record satisfies us that no injustice was done to the city in requiring a trial at that term. The affidavit for a continuance, setting forth the absent testimony, was treated as a deposition, which the city was- privileged to introduce but did not. No error was committed in the admission of testimony nor in the rulings on instructions. ,

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

No substantial error was committed in requiring the city to go to trial at the term the trial was had. Both parties mistakenly proceeded on the theory that the defendant was in default, but the demurrer of the city, which was filed by consent of the plaintiff, was adjudged to be frivolous, and hence the case then stood as if no demurrer had been filed. Neither the ruling on the demurrer nor that denying the motion for a continuance furnish ground for complaint. The time subsequently given for answer and preparation for trial was brief, but an examination of the record satisfies us that no injustice was done to the city in requiring a trial at that term. The affidavit for a continuance, setting forth the absent testimony, was treated as a deposition, which the city was- privileged to introduce but did not. No error was committed in the admission of testimony nor in the rulings on instructions. ,

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 P. 1132, 77 Kan. 843, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-topeka-v-pert-kan-1907.