Scrivner v. Tucker

Supreme Court of Kansas

Scrivner v. Tucker

201 P.2d 632, 166 Kan. 295, 1949 Kan. LEXIS 308

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 22, 1949

DocketNo. 36,997

StatusPublished

This text of 201 P.2d 632 (Scrivner v. Tucker) 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

Scrivner v. Tucker, 201 P.2d 632, 166 Kan. 295, 1949 Kan. LEXIS 308 (kan 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, C- J.:

This was an action in replevin for a described cow. The basic controverted question was whether the plaintiffs owned the cow or whether she belonged to the defendants. A trial by jury was waived and the case was tried by the court. Judgment was for defendants and plaintiffs have appealed and specify as error, (1) that the court erred in rendering judgment for defendants; (2) that the judgment is contrary to the evidence and constitutes an abuse of discretion on the part of the court; and (3) that the court erred in overruling plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.

In this court appellants argue that “the ruling of the trial court, was contrary to a preponderance of the evidence,” and that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Many witnesses were called and gave testimony. The testimony was in conflict respecting some of the questions in issue. It was the function of the trial court to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and=4 the weight to be given to their testimony. That is not a function of this court. (See Allison v. Ahlers, 26 Kan. 582; Stromquist v. Nelson, 159 Kan. 716, 158 P. 2d 458; In re Estate of Walker, 160 Kan. [296]*296461, 462, 163 P. 2d 359, and the many cases collected in Hatcher’s Digest, Appeal and Error, §§ 503, 505, 507, 508.)

We have read all the testimony which has been abstracted and find an abundance of substantial, competent evidence to sustain the judgment of the trial court. It would serve no useful purpose to summarize the evidence at length. Upon the motion for a new trial there appears to have been nothing offered except a reargument of the evidence. Appellants’ brief is an argument of the evidence favorable to them. No authorities are cited.

We find no error in the record. The judgment of the trial court 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

Harvey, C- J.:

This was an action in replevin for a described cow. The basic controverted question was whether the plaintiffs owned the cow or whether she belonged to the defendants. A trial by jury was waived and the case was tried by the court. Judgment was for defendants and plaintiffs have appealed and specify as error, (1) that the court erred in rendering judgment for defendants; (2) that the judgment is contrary to the evidence and constitutes an abuse of discretion on the part of the court; and (3) that the court erred in overruling plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.

In this court appellants argue that “the ruling of the trial court, was contrary to a preponderance of the evidence,” and that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Many witnesses were called and gave testimony. The testimony was in conflict respecting some of the questions in issue. It was the function of the trial court to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and=4 the weight to be given to their testimony. That is not a function of this court. (See Allison v. Ahlers, 26 Kan. 582; Stromquist v. Nelson, 159 Kan. 716, 158 P. 2d 458; In re Estate of Walker, 160 Kan. [296]*296461, 462, 163 P. 2d 359, and the many cases collected in Hatcher’s Digest, Appeal and Error, §§ 503, 505, 507, 508.)

We have read all the testimony which has been abstracted and find an abundance of substantial, competent evidence to sustain the judgment of the trial court. It would serve no useful purpose to summarize the evidence at length. Upon the motion for a new trial there appears to have been nothing offered except a reargument of the evidence. Appellants’ brief is an argument of the evidence favorable to them. No authorities are cited.

We find no error in the record. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 P.2d 632, 166 Kan. 295, 1949 Kan. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scrivner-v-tucker-kan-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack