St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Shinn

55 P. 346, 60 Kan. 111, 1898 Kan. LEXIS 157
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedDecember 10, 1898
DocketNo. 11278
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 55 P. 346 (St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Shinn) 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
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Shinn, 55 P. 346, 60 Kan. 111, 1898 Kan. LEXIS 157 (kan 1898).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

In an attempted appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace the railroad company gave an appeal bond which was insufficient in amount. In the district court the company offered to give a new and sufficient bond, but its application .was denied and the appeal dismissed. The company seeks by mandamus to compel the district court to accept the amended bond and to reinstate the appeal. The only substantial objection to the bond was the insufficiency of the amount. The other objections were captious in their nature and not entitled to serious consideration. It was the duty of the court to allow the filing of a new and sufficient bond and to take cognizance of and hear the case upon its merits. (St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Hurst, 52 Kan. 609, 35 Pac. 211.) The amount involved being less than $100, the ruling of the district court dismissing the appeal cannot be reviewed on error or appeal.

[112]*112The remedy of mandamus, however, is not available. The district court, in dismissing the appeal, acted judicially, and mandamus will not lie to control discretion or to revise judicial action. The fact that the ruling of the inferior court is plainly erroneous is no ground for mandamus where the question of dismissal is properly within its jurisdiction. Nor will mandamus lie even though the party aggrieved has no right of appeal or other remedy to review the action of the court, as the want of such remedy does not of itself entitle the party aggrieved to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. (High on Ext. Leg. Rem., §§ 173, 189, 190.) Writ refused.

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

Related

Gray v. Jenkins
326 P.2d 319 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1958)
Mahoney v. Stavely
165 P.2d 230 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1946)
Brockman v. Bayman
10 P.2d 31 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1932)
Johnson v. Schoch
115 P. 638 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 P. 346, 60 Kan. 111, 1898 Kan. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-san-francisco-railroad-v-shinn-kan-1898.