Case ID: kan_41/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Simpson, C.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julius Landauer et al. v. N. Hoagland.
    New Tbial, Denied- — Practice. Wheie, in an assignment of errors, the only errors complained of relate to mattefs occurring on the trial, for which a new trial was prayed, but the action of the court in overruling the motion is not assigned for error, no question is properly raised in this court. (Garson v. Dunk, 27 Kas. 524, cited, and followed.)
    
      Error from Wyandotte District Court.
    
    The opinion states the case.
    
      D. JB. Hadley, and J. W. Jenhins, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Hutchings & Heplinger, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

Simpson, C.:

The petition in error filed in this case contains eight assignments of error, which, as is alleged, occurred during the trial in the court below. These errors, to be considered by this court, must have been called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial; and the adverse ruling of the trial court on the motion for a new trial must be specifically assigned as error in the petition in error filed in this court. This has not been done. The action of the trial court in overruling the motion of plaintiffs in error for a new trial is not assigned as error here, and hence we cannot consider the questions discussed as to the introduction of evidence, the instructions, etc. (Carson v. Funk, 27 Kas. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 id. 72.)

It is recommended that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.