Van Tuyl v. Morrow
This text of 92 P. 303 (Van Tuyl v. Morrow) 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.
Opinion
The error complained of in this case is that the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence. The petition in error was not filed until more than one year after the demurrer was sustained, and it is therefore too late to review the alleged [850]*850error in this proceeding. (White v. Railway Co., 74 Kan. 778, 88 Pac. 54; Corum v. Hubbard, 69 Kan. 608, 77 Pac. 530; Milling Co. v. Buoy, 71 Kan. 293, 80 Pac. 591; Railway Co. v. Murphy, 75 Kan. 707, 90 Pac. 290.)
No motion for a new trial was necessary, and the filing of such motion did not have the effect to extend the time for making and serving a case or applying for an extension of the time allowed by the statute. (White v. Railway Co., 74 Kan. 778, 88 Pac. 54; Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 Kan. 283, 85 Pac. 299.)
The motion to dismiss is therefore allowed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
92 P. 303, 77 Kan. 849, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-tuyl-v-morrow-kan-1907.