Hunter v. Cross
This text of 52 Kan. 283 (Hunter v. Cross) 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.
Opinion
The record fails to show any service of the case which is attached to the petition in error on the defendant in error, or his counsel, and for that reason objection is made to its consideration. On February 24, 1890, defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and he was given 60 days to make a case. The only thing in the record tending to show service on the plaintiff is an indorsement as follows: “The foregoing is O. K. May 27, 1890. — T. J. [284]*284Hudson.” This, it will be perceived, was long after the ex~ piration of the 60 days, and counsel had no power to extend the time allowed by the court. No extension was granted by the judge at any time. (Insurance Co. v. Koons, 26 Kas. 215; Dunn v. Travis, 45 id. 541.) The case will be dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 Kan. 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-cross-kan-1893.