Landauer v. Hoagland

41 Kan. 520
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided January 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

41 Kan. 520 (Landauer v. Hoagland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)