Case ID: kan_125/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marshall, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 27,483. No. 27,484. No. 27,485.
    Estate of Joseph Schmitz, Deceased, Appellee, v. Joseph Schmitz, Jr., Appellant; J. E. Stillwell et al., Appellees. Estate of Joseph Schmitz, Deceased, Appellee, v. George Schmitz, Appellant; J. E. Stillwell et al., Appellees. Estate of Joseph Schmitz, Deceased, Appellee, v. Frank Schmitz, Appellant; J. E. Stillwell et al., Appellees.
    
    (263 Pac. 1045.)
    OPINION DENYING A REHEARING.
    SYLLABUS by the court.
    Appeal and Error — Review—Question Not Presented to Trial Court. The supreme court will not consider questions presented for the first time on appeal. (Kelly v. Insurance Co., 101 Kan. 636, 168 Pac. 686, followed.)
    Appeal and Error, 3 C. J. p. 689 n. 41.
    Appeal from Nemaha district court; C. W. Ryan, judge.
    Opinion denying a rehearing and modification of judgment filed February 11, 1928.
    (For original opinion of affirmance see 1'24 Kan. 546, 261 Pac. 824.)
    
      Edward T. Riling, John J. Riling, both of Lawrence, and Maurice O’Keefe, of Atchison, for the appellants.
    
      Charles II. Herold and R. M. Emery, Jr., both of Seneca, for the appellees.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Marshall, J.:

A motion has been filed by the plaintiffs in which they ask “that they be granted a rehearing in this case, and that the judgment be modified, at least to the extent of placing in the second classification of claims the judgment for George Schmitz in the sum of two'thousand dollars, and for Joseph Schmitz, Jr., in the sum of four thousand dollars.”

The plaintiffs now ask that that part of their elaims which arose for services prior to 1911 as claims of the second class under the law as it existed when Cawood v. Wolfley, 56 Kan. 281, 43 Pac. 236, was decided. That proposition was not presented to the probate court, the -district court, nor to this court until the motion for rehearing or modification was filed. If the plaintiffs intended to urge that point in this court, they should have presented it to the trial court. (Wilson v. Fuller, 9 Kan. 176; Koshka v. Railroad Co., 114 Kan. 126, 217 Pac. 293.) A number of other cases might be cited.

The petition for rehearing and for a modification of the judgment is denied.