Vanhorn v. Vanhorn

88 P. 62, 74 Kan. 891, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 180
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided December 8, 1906·No. No. 14,769·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This case is brought here on a transcript of the record, which on its face discloses that all of the pleadings are not included. There is a motion by defendants in error to dismiss and one by plaintiff in error for permission to amend the record by attaching the missing papers. As the record stands it cannot be considered. (Neiswender v. James, 41 Kan. 463, 21 Pac. 573; Barger v. Sample, 63 Kan. 880, 64 Pac. 1026.) There cannot be a correction of the record at this time. It might have been made at any time within a year after the judgment was rendered, but after a year has expired no amendment of substance can be made. (Crawford v. K. C. Ft. S. & G. [892]*892Rld. Co., 45 Kan. 474, 25 Pac. 865.) The judgment was rendered more than a year ago, viz., January 3, 1905. It is too late to amend, and, the record being incomplete, we are without jurisdiction.

The proceeding is dismissed.

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

Vanhorn v. Vanhorn, 88 P. 62, 74 Kan. 891, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 180 (kan 1906).

88 P. 62 (Vanhorn v. Vanhorn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Deerhead Township v. Fritz
102 P.2d 1035 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1940)
Creek Realty Co. v. City of Muskogee
1915 OK 949 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)