Lapo v. Naillieux

Supreme Court of Kansas

Lapo v. Naillieux

29 P.2d 1093, 139 Kan. 23, 1934 Kan. LEXIS 233

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 10, 1934

DocketNo. 31,240

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 29 P.2d 1093 (Lapo v. Naillieux) 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

Lapo v. Naillieux, 29 P.2d 1093, 139 Kan. 23, 1934 Kan. LEXIS 233 (kan 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This is a rehearing. Our first opinion gave the facts and the trial court’s disposition of the case. (138 Kan. 99, 23 P. 2d 500.)

Appellee complains that our order directing the trial court to enter judgment on the special findings of the jury was ill-advised. A reperusal of the record discloses that while the trial court stated that the special findings were supported by evidence, it did not explicitly approve those findings; and on mature deliberation this court is now" convinced that the trial court’s ruling that a new trial should be granted was tantamount to a disapproval of the special findings. It is, of course, elementary that without the trial court’s approval of the jury’s special findings of fact no judgment can be entered on them by the trial court nor ordered by this court.

[24]*24It follows that our previous order directing judgment to be entered in favor of defendant on the jury’s special findings must be set aside, and the judgment granting a new trial must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This is a rehearing. Our first opinion gave the facts and the trial court’s disposition of the case. (138 Kan. 99, 23 P. 2d 500.)

Appellee complains that our order directing the trial court to enter judgment on the special findings of the jury was ill-advised. A reperusal of the record discloses that while the trial court stated that the special findings were supported by evidence, it did not explicitly approve those findings; and on mature deliberation this court is now" convinced that the trial court’s ruling that a new trial should be granted was tantamount to a disapproval of the special findings. It is, of course, elementary that without the trial court’s approval of the jury’s special findings of fact no judgment can be entered on them by the trial court nor ordered by this court.

[24]*24It follows that our previous order directing judgment to be entered in favor of defendant on the jury’s special findings must be set aside, and the judgment granting a new trial must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 P.2d 1093, 139 Kan. 23, 1934 Kan. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lapo-v-naillieux-kan-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack