Decker v. Bailey

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decker v. Bailey

171 P. 636, 102 Kan. 538, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 86

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 9, 1918

DocketNo. 21,102

StatusPublished

This text of 171 P. 636 (Decker v. Bailey) 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

Decker v. Bailey, 171 P. 636, 102 Kan. 538, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 86 (kan 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The defendants appeal from an order sustaining generally a motion for a new trial, based on all the .statutory grounds.

A statement of the proceedings is not necessary. The district court might have been satisfied the plaintiff was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case, because, after taking leave to amend his answer, the defendants did not do so, and the plaintiff did not know the answer would not be amended in time to prepare for trial on the pleadings as they stood at the term at which the cause was heard. Some improper evidence was admitted. Essential features of the defendants’ case depended on oral testimony, which the court might have believed the jury should not have credited.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The defendants appeal from an order sustaining generally a motion for a new trial, based on all the .statutory grounds.

A statement of the proceedings is not necessary. The district court might have been satisfied the plaintiff was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case, because, after taking leave to amend his answer, the defendants did not do so, and the plaintiff did not know the answer would not be amended in time to prepare for trial on the pleadings as they stood at the term at which the cause was heard. Some improper evidence was admitted. Essential features of the defendants’ case depended on oral testimony, which the court might have believed the jury should not have credited.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 P. 636, 102 Kan. 538, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decker-v-bailey-kan-1918.