Case ID: kan_53/html/0728-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Allen, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

S. J. Safford et al. v. Honor Turner.—Charles Schram et al. v. Same.
    
      Oase-MAde — Settlement—Notice. By order of the district court, an extension of time to make and serve a case was granted. The order fixed the time for suggesting amendments, and provided for settlement of the case on five days’ notice. The record fails to show any amendments suggested. No notice of the time of settlement was given, and there was no appearance on the part of the defendant. Held, That the petition in error must be dismissed.
    
      Error from Butler District Oowt.
    
    These two cases are stated in the opinion herein, filed July 6, 1894.
    
      F. L, Jones, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      E. N. Smith, for defendant in error.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Allen, J.:

In both these cases motions to dismiss, on the ground that the cases were settled in the absence of the defendant in error and without notice, are interposed. The records show that on the 17th day of July, 1890, motions for a new trial were overruled, and 60 days given to make and serve cases. On the 12th day of September an order was made, extending the time for 10 days from the 14th day of September. The order then provides that the defendant shall have 10 days thereafter to suggest amendments, and the cases to be settled upon five days’ notice by either party. The cases were settled on the 31st day of October. There is nothing in the records showing either that amendments were suggested, that notice of the time of settlement was given or waived, or that the defendant was present when they were settled. On the other hand, an affidavit of the attorney for the defendant in error is filed, showing that no notice was given or waived, and that there was no appearance for the defendant at the time the cases were settled.

The motions to dismiss must be sustained. (Weeks v. Medler, 18 Kas. 425; Railway Co. v. Roach, 18 id. 592; Boot and Shoe Co. v. Martin, 45 id. 765.)

All the Justices concurring.