Cramer v. Farmers State Bank

Supreme Court of Kansas

Cramer v. Farmers State Bank

158 P. 1111, 98 Kan. 641, 1916 Kan. LEXIS 151

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 8, 1916

DocketNo. 20,309

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 P. 1111 (Cramer v. Farmers State Bank) 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

Cramer v. Farmers State Bank, 158 P. 1111, 98 Kan. 641, 1916 Kan. LEXIS 151 (kan 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

In an action for the recovery of money only a. judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $104.29. The defendant paid the amount into court, and the plaintiff has received a portion of it. The judgment itself is not attacked, but the plaintiff appeals from a later order made, the effect of which was to deny his claim to a recovery of $25.50 additional, and perhaps of a further item — not enough to bring the amount in controversy up to $100 — and from a ruling dividing the costs, all of which he maintains should have been taxed against the defendant.. The amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, being less than $100, no review can be had upon the merits, nor upon the taxation of costs. (Civ. Code, § 566; Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Yawger, 52 Kan. 691, 35 Pac. 814.) The plaintiff asserts that the case is within one of the statutory exceptions, in. [642]*642that a constitutional question is involved, contending that he was deprived of his property without due process of law by the failure of the trial court to follow the provision of the code allowing the recovery of costs by the prevailing party in an action for money only. (Civ. Code, § 613.) If the court misinterpreted or misapplied the statute the result was an erroneous ruling, but not a denial of due process of law. (Griggs v. Hanson, 86 Kan. 632, 121 Pac. 1094; 6 R. C. L. 445.)

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

In an action for the recovery of money only a. judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $104.29. The defendant paid the amount into court, and the plaintiff has received a portion of it. The judgment itself is not attacked, but the plaintiff appeals from a later order made, the effect of which was to deny his claim to a recovery of $25.50 additional, and perhaps of a further item — not enough to bring the amount in controversy up to $100 — and from a ruling dividing the costs, all of which he maintains should have been taxed against the defendant.. The amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, being less than $100, no review can be had upon the merits, nor upon the taxation of costs. (Civ. Code, § 566; Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Yawger, 52 Kan. 691, 35 Pac. 814.) The plaintiff asserts that the case is within one of the statutory exceptions, in. [642]*642that a constitutional question is involved, contending that he was deprived of his property without due process of law by the failure of the trial court to follow the provision of the code allowing the recovery of costs by the prevailing party in an action for money only. (Civ. Code, § 613.) If the court misinterpreted or misapplied the statute the result was an erroneous ruling, but not a denial of due process of law. (Griggs v. Hanson, 86 Kan. 632, 121 Pac. 1094; 6 R. C. L. 445.)

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 P. 1111, 98 Kan. 641, 1916 Kan. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cramer-v-farmers-state-bank-kan-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack