Northrup National Bank v. Webster Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Northrup National Bank v. Webster Refining Co.

132 P. 832, 89 Kan. 738, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 112

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 7, 1913

DocketNo. 17,961

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 132 P. 832 (Northrup National Bank v. Webster Refining Co.) 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

Northrup National Bank v. Webster Refining Co., 132 P. 832, 89 Kan. 738, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 112 (kan 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

The several assignments of error in this case are that the court erred’in approving findings of fact made by the referee and the conclusion of law drawn therefrom. No motion for new trial was filed.

Where a referee is appointed to take the evidence and report the facts in an action, the evidence is usually taken out of court and in the absence of the judge. In such case the court does not review the evidence, but renders judgment in accordance with the report of the referee unless objection thereto is made, and error can not be here predicated upon a judgment involving the correctness of the facts found as shown by such report, unless a motion for new trial has been filed and overruled. Section 305 of the code of civil procedure makes the same provision for a new trial where a judgment is based upon the report of a referee as when based upon the verdict of a jury or a decision of the court.

This court has no jurisdiction to determine the facts, [739]*739but if it is claimed that the report of the referee of the facts, or of any material fact involved, is contrary to the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence, and the attention of the trial court has been challenged thereto Dy a proper motion for a new trial and such motion has been overruled, then the party against whom such ruling is made is entitled to a review of the case in this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

The several assignments of error in this case are that the court erred’in approving findings of fact made by the referee and the conclusion of law drawn therefrom. No motion for new trial was filed.

Where a referee is appointed to take the evidence and report the facts in an action, the evidence is usually taken out of court and in the absence of the judge. In such case the court does not review the evidence, but renders judgment in accordance with the report of the referee unless objection thereto is made, and error can not be here predicated upon a judgment involving the correctness of the facts found as shown by such report, unless a motion for new trial has been filed and overruled. Section 305 of the code of civil procedure makes the same provision for a new trial where a judgment is based upon the report of a referee as when based upon the verdict of a jury or a decision of the court.

This court has no jurisdiction to determine the facts, [739]*739but if it is claimed that the report of the referee of the facts, or of any material fact involved, is contrary to the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence, and the attention of the trial court has been challenged thereto Dy a proper motion for a new trial and such motion has been overruled, then the party against whom such ruling is made is entitled to a review of the case in this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 P. 832, 89 Kan. 738, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northrup-national-bank-v-webster-refining-co-kan-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack