School District No. 75 v. Jewett

Supreme Court of Kansas

School District No. 75 v. Jewett

87 P. 1149, 74 Kan. 900, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 194

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 10, 1906

DocketNo. 14,806

StatusPublished

This text of 87 P. 1149 (School District No. 75 v. Jewett) 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

School District No. 75 v. Jewett, 87 P. 1149, 74 Kan. 900, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 194 (kan 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff brought this action on a schoolteacher’s contract to recover wages for services performed by her in teaching. Judgment was rendered for her, and the school district prosecutes error.

The record presented deprives us of an examination of the proceedings had on the trial. It appears that a motion for a new trial was filed and /denied, but the motion is not contained in the record, consequently we are unable to determine what trial errors were relied on and presented to the trial court. This court cannot review alleged errors which were not called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial. Under the present condition of the record the only question which we may consider and pass upon” is whether the petition supports the judgment. We think it does.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff brought this action on a schoolteacher’s contract to recover wages for services performed by her in teaching. Judgment was rendered for her, and the school district prosecutes error.

The record presented deprives us of an examination of the proceedings had on the trial. It appears that a motion for a new trial was filed and /denied, but the motion is not contained in the record, consequently we are unable to determine what trial errors were relied on and presented to the trial court. This court cannot review alleged errors which were not called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial. Under the present condition of the record the only question which we may consider and pass upon” is whether the petition supports the judgment. We think it does.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 P. 1149, 74 Kan. 900, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/school-district-no-75-v-jewett-kan-1906.