Wilson v. City of Phillipsburg

Supreme Court of Kansas

Wilson v. City of Phillipsburg

77 P. 582, 69 Kan. 867, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 373

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 7, 1904

DocketNo. 13,630

StatusPublished

This text of 77 P. 582 (Wilson v. City of Phillipsburg) 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

Wilson v. City of Phillipsburg, 77 P. 582, 69 Kan. 867, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 373 (kan 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This proceeding in error was originally supported by a case-made, attached to the petition in error. The case-made was settled and signed without jurisdiction^ [868]*868and. yielding to that fact, the plaintiff in error substituted a transcript of the record in the district court for the case-made. The errors assigned involve a consideration of testimony and of instructions given and refused. The evidence could be brought upon the record of the district court in no other way than by a bill of exceptions, and no such document appears in the transcript. Therefore, questions arising upon the admission and exclusion of evidence may not be examined. Most of the instructions given and refused can be interpreted only by the evidence; hence, they will not be considered.

One instruction is assailed as imposing a wrong interpretation upon a writing admitted by the pleadings. The instruction uses practically the language of the writing, and ’.declares its true intent.

It is claimed that two instructions are contradictory of each other, but they ate not so. One relates to the conduct of a work of construction, and the other relates to the sufficiency of the completed work to fulfil the purpose for which it was intended, as a result of construction according to a given contract and plan,

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This proceeding in error was originally supported by a case-made, attached to the petition in error. The case-made was settled and signed without jurisdiction^ [868]*868and. yielding to that fact, the plaintiff in error substituted a transcript of the record in the district court for the case-made. The errors assigned involve a consideration of testimony and of instructions given and refused. The evidence could be brought upon the record of the district court in no other way than by a bill of exceptions, and no such document appears in the transcript. Therefore, questions arising upon the admission and exclusion of evidence may not be examined. Most of the instructions given and refused can be interpreted only by the evidence; hence, they will not be considered.

One instruction is assailed as imposing a wrong interpretation upon a writing admitted by the pleadings. The instruction uses practically the language of the writing, and ’.declares its true intent.

It is claimed that two instructions are contradictory of each other, but they ate not so. One relates to the conduct of a work of construction, and the other relates to the sufficiency of the completed work to fulfil the purpose for which it was intended, as a result of construction according to a given contract and plan,

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 P. 582, 69 Kan. 867, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-city-of-phillipsburg-kan-1904.