Karr v. Hudson

19 Kan. 474
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 19 Kan. 474 (Karr v. Hudson) 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
Karr v. Hudson, 19 Kan. 474 (kan 1878).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

On the 10th of March 1877, the motion for a new trial in this action was overruled by the district court, and Karr, the defendant in the court below, was given thirty days in which to make a case for this court. • What purports to' be a case-made/’ in the proceedings before us, is signed by the judge, and dated April 13th 1877. But the paper is not attested by the clerk, nor is the seal of the court attached. Hence the same is not authenticated as required by the law. (Sec. 1, ch. 114, Laws of 1871.) We cannot be unmindful of the behests of the law, nor have we any authority to dispense with the statutory provisions of authentication required to a case-made. The paper presented us is not sufficiently authenticated to constitute it a case-made. (Hodgden v. Comm’rs of Ellsworth Co., 10 Kas. 637.)

Nor can we accept the case-made as a bill of exceptions. There is nothing in the record to show the paper was filed in term-time—nothing to show that the court was in session on April 13th; and the journal entries of the court, outside of said paper, make no mention of any bill of exceptions being tendered, or allowed, or filed. We cannot presume, in the absence of the proper evidence, and when the record shows that thirty days were given to make a case, that any bill of exceptions was taken, notwithstanding the paper is denominated both a case-made and a bill of exceptions. It is neither. Under such circumstances it is impossible for us to examine the action of the district court in refusing to suppress certain depositions, in admitting alleged incompetent evidence, and in directing the jury, as there is, in legal contemplation, no case-made, bill of exceptions, or other record here. The case will be dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. Whitbeck
48 P. 16 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1897)
German Reformed Church v. Abbey
54 Kan. 766 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1895)
Limerick v. Gwinn
44 Kan. 694 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)
Linton v. Frazier
29 Kan. 20 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1882)
Pierce v. Myers
28 Kan. 364 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Kan. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karr-v-hudson-kan-1878.