Groomer v. Barnes

Supreme Court of Kansas

Groomer v. Barnes

83 P.2d 631, 148 Kan. 482, 1938 Kan. LEXIS 215

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 5, 1938

DocketNo. 33,857

StatusPublished

This text of 83 P.2d 631 (Groomer v. Barnes) 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

Groomer v. Barnes, 83 P.2d 631, 148 Kan. 482, 1938 Kan. LEXIS 215 (kan 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Thiele, J.:

This appeal is from a judgment denying an injunction.

The abstract does not set forth the pleadings, but only their general nature, and the only specification of error is that the trial court-erred in refusing to grant the injunction. Such an assignment is too general and does not specify an error within the meaning of rule 5 of this court. See, also, Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190, 114 Pac. 372, syl. ¶ 1.

Insofar as the abstract discloses, plaintiffs and defendants, or some of them, owned adjoining lands, portions of which along their boundary line were rather flat. Surface water seems to have collected on each. Plaintiffs contended that defendant Barnes was digging a ditch which would cast the water on them. There was conflicting evidence as to whether Barnes was digging a ditch or merely cleaning out one which had existed for many years, whether there was a natural flow of water from defendants’ to plaintiffs’ lands or vice versa, etc. After hearing all of this evidence, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendants.

If the trial court made any findings of fact, they are not - abstracted. The general judgment for defendants carries with it a finding of all necessary facts in their favor.

No error has been made to appear, and the judgment of the trial 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

Thiele, J.:

This appeal is from a judgment denying an injunction.

The abstract does not set forth the pleadings, but only their general nature, and the only specification of error is that the trial court-erred in refusing to grant the injunction. Such an assignment is too general and does not specify an error within the meaning of rule 5 of this court. See, also, Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190, 114 Pac. 372, syl. ¶ 1.

Insofar as the abstract discloses, plaintiffs and defendants, or some of them, owned adjoining lands, portions of which along their boundary line were rather flat. Surface water seems to have collected on each. Plaintiffs contended that defendant Barnes was digging a ditch which would cast the water on them. There was conflicting evidence as to whether Barnes was digging a ditch or merely cleaning out one which had existed for many years, whether there was a natural flow of water from defendants’ to plaintiffs’ lands or vice versa, etc. After hearing all of this evidence, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendants.

If the trial court made any findings of fact, they are not - abstracted. The general judgment for defendants carries with it a finding of all necessary facts in their favor.

No error has been made to appear, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 P.2d 631, 148 Kan. 482, 1938 Kan. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groomer-v-barnes-kan-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack