Case ID: kan_16/html/0022-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Valentine, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John W. Thom v. W. D. Davis.
    1. Motion nob New Tbiai,; Nevily-Discovered Evidence. Where a mo- - tion for a new trial is made on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, and overruled, without all the evidence before us the supreme court cannot say that the newly-discovered evidence is not merely cumulative. (10 Kas. 81, 639.)
    2. Practice, Supreme Coubt. Where counsel fail to specify any matter as error, and the supreme court perceives no error in the record, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
    
      Error from Ottawa District Oowrt.
    
    At the April Term 1874 of the district court, in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s Hen, Davis recovered judgment against Thom for $149.23, and obtained a decree for the sale of certain real property. •Thom moved for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, but the transcript does not contain any evidence offered to support said motion. The motion was overruled, and Thom brings the case here.
    
      Case & Putnam, for plaintiff in error.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

From an inspection of the record, we have been unable to find any error in this case. The entire brief of the plaintiff in error reads as follows: “The plaintiff in this case believes the law of this case to be settled in the following cases: 10 Kas. 81; 10 Kas. 639.” The plaintiff in error is correct. The two cases referred to do settle the principal questions that might be raised in this case, and they settle such questions against the plaintiff in error. As there is no error-apparent on the record, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.