Landauer v. Hoagland

41 Kan. 520
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 Kan. 520 (Landauer v. Hoagland) 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
Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520 (kan 1889).

Opinion

Opinion by

Simpson, C.:

The petition in error filed in this case contains eight assignments of error, which, as is alleged, occurred during the trial in the court below. These errors, to be considered by this court, must have been called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial; and the adverse ruling of the trial court on the motion for a new trial must be specifically assigned as error in the petition in error filed in this court. This has not been done. The action of the trial court in overruling the motion of plaintiffs in error for a new trial is not assigned as error here, and hence we cannot consider the questions discussed as to the introduction of evidence, the instructions, etc. (Carson v. Funk, 27 Kas. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 id. 72.)

It is recommended that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks
1898 OK 64 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1898)
Roper v. Ferris
48 Kan. 583 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 Kan. 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landauer-v-hoagland-kan-1889.