Leverton v. Rork

85 P. 800, 74 Kan. 832, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 150
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided June 9, 1906·No. No. 14,372·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this case the findings of fact are supported by the evidence and justify the judgment of the court. The principal question was whether certain transactions, including the giving of instruments in the form of deeds, were intended as a transfer of the title to land or only as security for money loaned. The • court found, upon substantial testimony, that deeds absolute on their' faces were mortgages. It is insisted that the evidence in such cases should be clear, cogent, and convincing; that the testimony produced was not up to that standard; and that this court should now review and reweigh the evidence to determine its sufficiency. The district court was the trier of the facts, and presumably did apply the proper test in weighing the evidence. Its findings, when supported by substantial testimony, are binding upon this court. The existence of the rule requiring clear and convincing proof does not authorize this court to retry the facts. In this case, as in any other civil case, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight- of the testimony belong to the trial court, and its finding will not be.disturbed although we might arrive at a different conclusion from the evidence. Even in a criminal case, where the guilt of the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a verdict supported by substantial testimony is conclusive upon the reviewing court.'

There is nothing substantial in the objections to the rulings upon evidence, nor do we find any ground for the reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Leverton v. Rork, 85 P. 800, 74 Kan. 832, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 150 (kan 1906).

85 P. 800 (Leverton v. Rork) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wehking v. Wehking
516 P.2d 1018 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1973)
Bradbury v. Wise
208 P.2d 209 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1949)
Kull v. Pearl
76 P.2d 790 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1938)
Shoemake v. Davis
73 P.2d 1043 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1937)
Hoover v. Hopkins
251 P. 411 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1926)
Klein v. Blackshere
215 P. 315 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1923)
Johnson v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.
135 P. 589 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1913)
Wooddell v. Allbrecht
104 P. 559 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1909)