Case Title: Scrinopskie v. Arthur Murray, Inc.

Citation: 195 Kan. 278, 403 P.2d 1001

Docket Number: 44,151

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1965-07-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
195 Kan. 278 (1965)
403 P.2d 1001
LESLIE SCRINOPSKIE and ROBERT SCRINOPSKIE, Appellees,
v.
ARTHUR MURRAY, INC., A corporation, Appellant, and E.F. FURREY, WILLIAM OLSON and EDITH OLSON, Defendants.
No. 44,151

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 10, 1965.
Myron L. Listrom, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Eldon Sloan and James W. Sloan, of Topeka, were with him on the brief for the appellant.
Charles S. Scott, of Topeka, argued the cause and Samuel C. Jackson, of Topeka, was with him on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
This was an action to recover for the breach of a written lease covering property used as a dancing school and studio.
No service of process was had on defendants Furrey and Olson, and they are not parties to the judgment and this appeal.
The case was tried by the court without a jury in December, 1963. Judgment was rendered against Arthur Murray, Inc., a corporation, (hereafter referred to as defendant) in January, 1964, in the amount of $1,900.00, as prayed for.
Defendant has appealed. Appellate procedure is governed by the new code of civil procedure and the rules of this court relating to appellate practice found at 191 Kan. XII.
In the pleadings and during the trial, defendant denied the agency of Furrey and the Olsons to bind it by the lease. Implicit in the judgment rendered, is a finding otherwise.
In the "Record on Appeal" defendant lists 6 statements of points. Points 1, 2 and 3 relate to alleged errors concerning the evidence of and the finding of agency.
*279 Point 4 is 
Point 5 is 
Point 6 is that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial.
In its brief defendant (appellant) states that 
and that 
Because of the foregoing we therefore have only points 4 and 5, above, before us, and plaintiffs contend that both points, as stated by defendant, are inadequate and do not comply with Rule No. 6 (d) of this court, the pertinent portion of which reads:
We believe that plaintiffs' contention is well taken.
Rule No. 6 provides the procedure relating to the contents and preparation of the record on appeal contemplated by K.S.A. 60-2104, which provides:
In the 1965 Cumulative Supplement to "Kansas Code of Civil Procedure" by Judge Spencer A. Gard, the author, in discussing Rule No. 6 states:
..............
In Woodbury v. Clermont, 236 F.2d 132, it was said:
Points 4 and 5, above, which state merely that the court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to plaintiffs' evidence and in rendering judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant, are insufficient to comply with the quoted portion of Rule No. 6 (d) above, and present nothing for review.
Point 6  that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, is neither briefed nor argued and must be considered as abandoned.
We are not unmindful of the fact that at the present time attorneys, trial courts, and this court  are going through a sort of "transitional period" with respect to the provisions of the new code of civil procedure and the new rules of practice promulgated in connection therewith. We believe, however, that in the long run and in the interest of orderly and consistent procedure, literal compliance  within of course reasonable limitations  should be required. Notwithstanding what has been said  we have reviewed the record in this case and find nothing to warrant a reversal.
The judgment is affirmed.