Kelley v. Kelley

Supreme Court of Kansas

Kelley v. Kelley

99 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 410, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 204

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 12, 1909

DocketNo. 15,806

StatusPublished

This text of 99 P. 1134 (Kelley v. Kelley) 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

Kelley v. Kelley, 99 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 410, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 204 (kan 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

After a trial and judgment a motion for a new trial was filed and denied. Time was then taken to make a case. This time was permitted to expire without action. The defeated party afterward filed a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, supporting it by affidavits. This was denied, time being again fixed for making a case. [411]*411Within this time a case was served and settled, upon which we are now asked to review the proceedings prior to the judgment as well as the ruling on the second' motion for a new trial. Under these circumstances the case-made presents no question except whether error was committed in denying the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The evidence given at the trial is not preserved, and we are therefore unable to estimate the importance of the evidence set out in the affidavits. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

After a trial and judgment a motion for a new trial was filed and denied. Time was then taken to make a case. This time was permitted to expire without action. The defeated party afterward filed a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, supporting it by affidavits. This was denied, time being again fixed for making a case. [411]*411Within this time a case was served and settled, upon which we are now asked to review the proceedings prior to the judgment as well as the ruling on the second' motion for a new trial. Under these circumstances the case-made presents no question except whether error was committed in denying the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The evidence given at the trial is not preserved, and we are therefore unable to estimate the importance of the evidence set out in the affidavits. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 410, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-kelley-kan-1909.