Stramel v. Hawes

Supreme Court of Kansas

Stramel v. Hawes

165 P. 646, 101 Kan. 164, 1917 Kan. LEXIS 42

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 9, 1917

DocketNo. 20,923

StatusPublished

This text of 165 P. 646 (Stramel v. Hawes) 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

Stramel v. Hawes, 165 P. 646, 101 Kan. 164, 1917 Kan. LEXIS 42 (kan 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BURCH,

J.: The proceeding was one for the enforcement of an attorney’s lien on funds in the hands of the clerk of the district court, recovered by the defendant in the case of [165]*165Stramel v. Hawes, 97 Kan. 120, 154 Pac. 232. After a hearing the lien was sustained. A motion for a new trial was filed, and because it was suggested that the district judge was prejudiced, the motion for a new trial was heard by a judge pro tem. The matter was practically retried, and the motion for a new trial was overruled. The chief contention of the appellant is that the employment was covered by a written contract in which the lien claimant’s compensation was fixed. The evidence, which need not be recited, failed to. sustain the contention. There is nothing else in the case, and the judgment of the district 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

BURCH,

J.: The proceeding was one for the enforcement of an attorney’s lien on funds in the hands of the clerk of the district court, recovered by the defendant in the case of [165]*165Stramel v. Hawes, 97 Kan. 120, 154 Pac. 232. After a hearing the lien was sustained. A motion for a new trial was filed, and because it was suggested that the district judge was prejudiced, the motion for a new trial was heard by a judge pro tem. The matter was practically retried, and the motion for a new trial was overruled. The chief contention of the appellant is that the employment was covered by a written contract in which the lien claimant’s compensation was fixed. The evidence, which need not be recited, failed to. sustain the contention. There is nothing else in the case, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 P. 646, 101 Kan. 164, 1917 Kan. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stramel-v-hawes-kan-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack