Ebel v. Ebel

Supreme Court of Kansas

Ebel v. Ebel

95 P. 1134, 77 Kan. 862, 1908 Kan. LEXIS 369

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 11, 1908

DocketNo. 15,348

StatusPublished

This text of 95 P. 1134 (Ebel v. Ebel) 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

Ebel v. Ebel, 95 P. 1134, 77 Kan. 862, 1908 Kan. LEXIS 369 (kan 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The trial court might well have allowed the motion to strike out parts of the defendant’s answer. The answer pleaded some of the evidence, hut doubtless this was in explanation of certain allegations of the petition which charged defendant with extreme cruelty. The denial of the motion, however, was not prejudicial error, and cannot furnish ground for reversal.

Inasmuch as the court denied any relief to the defendant under his cross-petition, it is apparent that the plaintiff was not prejudiced in the overruling of her demurrer to it.

The evidence was conflicting, and the judgment refusing to both parties a divorce must be accepted as final. We are unable to say from all the evidence that the court erred in refusing the plaintiff a divorce.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The trial court might well have allowed the motion to strike out parts of the defendant’s answer. The answer pleaded some of the evidence, hut doubtless this was in explanation of certain allegations of the petition which charged defendant with extreme cruelty. The denial of the motion, however, was not prejudicial error, and cannot furnish ground for reversal.

Inasmuch as the court denied any relief to the defendant under his cross-petition, it is apparent that the plaintiff was not prejudiced in the overruling of her demurrer to it.

The evidence was conflicting, and the judgment refusing to both parties a divorce must be accepted as final. We are unable to say from all the evidence that the court erred in refusing the plaintiff a divorce.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 P. 1134, 77 Kan. 862, 1908 Kan. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ebel-v-ebel-kan-1908.