Case Title: Babb v. City of Wichita

Citation: 172 Kan. 416, 241 P.2d 755

Docket Number: 

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1952-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
172 Kan. 416 (1952)
241 P.2d 755
VIRGINIA BABB, Appellee,
v.
CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS, consisting of W.C. SALOME, L.A. DONNELL, EARL K. DUKE, F. RUSSELL JUMP and FLOYD T. AMSDEN; C.C. ELLIS, Clerk of the City of Wichita, Kansas, Appellants.
No. 38,433

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 8, 1952.
Paul J. Donaldson, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Fred W. Aley and Lawrence E. Curfman, both of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellants.
Havard F. Hudson, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Virginia Babb, also of Wichita, was with him on the briefs for the appellee and cross-appellant.
*417 The opinion of the court was delivered by
WERTZ, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court vacating a judgment and granting a new trial in an action brought to enjoin the assessment of certain property for a portion of the costs of paving a street in the city of Wichita. For the sake of clarity, appellee Virginia Babb will be referred to as plaintiff and the appellants, City of Wichita, the Board of City Commissioners consisting of W.C. Salome, L.A. Donnell, Earl K. Duke, F. Russell Jump and Floyd D. Amsden, and C.C. Ellis, City Clerk, as defendants.
The facts insofar as they are pertinent to the issues involved herein may be stated as follows: Plaintiff filed suit in the lower court seeking to enjoin the defendants from assessing her property with a portion of the costs of paving Yale Boulevard; after several amendments to her petition, issues were joined between the parties and on December 20, 1950, a pretrial conference was called pursuant to G.S. 1949, 60-2705 and 60-2902. This conference was held before a judge pro tem and extended throughout two days. The parties stipulated to most of the facts and to admission of exhibits in support thereof. Certain of plaintiff's allegations contained in her amended pleading were by the court ordered deleted. At the conclusion of the conference the court proceeded with the trial. Plaintiff offered certain oral testimony to support issues not agreed upon at the conference, which testimony was rejected by the court on the ground it was immaterial. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, defendants demurred to the facts as admitted and the petition as amended on the ground that they failed to state a cause of action against the defendants. At this point the plaintiff's counsel objected to argument of the demurrer for the reason that the record was not complete as to the facts and a dispute remained as to many of them, whereupon the court sustained defendants' demurrer and made certain findings of fact and conclusions of law and rendered judgment thereon on December 21, 1950. On December 22, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial (G.S. 1949, 60-3003) and on December 26, 1950, filed her amended motion for a new trial alleging as grounds, abuse of the court's discretion; that plaintiff was not offered a reasonable opportunity to present her evidence and to be heard on the merits of the case; erroneous rulings of the court; and that the decision was given under the influence of passion and *418 prejudice, and was in whole or in part contrary to the evidence. On January 6, 1951, the last day of that term of court, the parties appeared before the judge pro tem to settle the terms of the journal entry of judgment rendered by the court on December 21. As to what took place at this time, the record does not disclose, for the reason that no court reporter was present. However, the record does disclose that the terms of the journal entry of judgment were agreed upon. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was by the court overruled.
Plaintiff contends she objected to the court hearing said motion for new trial for the reasons that no court reporter was present, that they were not prepared to take up the motion, and wished to reoffer the excluded evidence profferred at the trial of the action. The journal entry of the court overruling the motion for new trial provides in pertinent part as follows:
..............
At the following term of court on January 24, 1951, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate and set aside the order of the court (G.S. 1949, 60-3007, Third) of January 6, 1951, overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial and asserted the following reasons:
This motion was heard by the regular trial judge on February 1, 1951. As to what transpired at this hearing, nothing is shown in the record other than an affidavit of plaintiff and statement by her counsel. The court made the following order:
On February 17, 1951, plaintiff presented her motions for new trial filed on December 22 and 26, 1950. At this hearing, the plaintiff reoffered her testimony which had been excluded by the judge pro tem on the trial of the case on its issues at the previous December hearing. After the hearing on the motion, the court granted a new trial. The amended order reads in pertinent part as follows:
Defendants appeal to this court asserting that (1) the trial court in the January term erred in vacating its order entered in the October term overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial; and (2) the trial court erred in granting plaintiff a new trial by its order of *420 February 17, 1951, after overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial in a prior term of court.
Defendants contend that the court had no jurisdiction at a subsequent term to vacate its judgment. We cannot follow this contention. G.S. 60-3007 provides in part:
..............
An irregularity has been defined as a departure from some prescribed rule of legal procedure; a deviation from certain provisions of the statute designed to secure method and convenience in procedure; the doing or not doing of that, in the conduct of a suit at law, which, conformable with the practice of the court, ought or ought not to have been done in the case; a violation or nonobservance of established rules and practices and the want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of proceeding. (48 C.J.S. 771; Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 2d ed., 686; In re Ellern, 23 Wn. (2d) 219, 160 P.2d 639.)
The power of the court to vacate or set aside its judgments at a subsequent term for irregularity is so essential to the orderly administration of justice that it will not be denied unless by virtue of legislation admitting no other reasonable construction. (Cooper v. Rhea, 82 Kan. 109, 107 Pac. 799; Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Aby, 144 Kan. 544, 61 P.2d 915.)
While no accurate classification of irregularities can be made, it may be said that an overt act of the trial court violative of the established rules of orderly procedure or of a right to a fair and impartial trial amounting to misconduct, may be regarded as an irregularity (Gray v. Robinson, 33 Cal. App. (2d) 177, 91 P.2d 194).
The question, therefore, squarely presented to this court is whether there was an irregularity within the foregoing definition in rendition of the judgment on January 6, 1951, and in denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
It is a well-established rule of this court that one of the principal purposes of a motion for a new trial is to give the defeated party an opportunity to put into the record her excluded evidence when she has specified that as one of the grounds in her motion for new trial. Errors in exclusion of evidence are trial errors and if not *421 presented on a motion for new trial will not be considered on appeal. (McKinney v. Sackett, 144 Kan. 290, 58 P.2d 1121; State v. Zeilinger, 147 Kan. 707, 78 P.2d 845.) When a ground for a motion for a new trial is error in exclusion of evidence, and such evidence is oral and not brought into the record, it must be produced at the hearing on a motion for a new trial. (Brewer v. Harris, 147 Kan. 197, 75 P.2d 287; In re Estate of Regle, 170 Kan. 558, 228 P.2d 722.) A proffer of excluded evidence stating the evidence the party intends to introduce is not sufficient. (Walker v. S.H. Kress & Co., 147 Kan. 48, 75 P.2d 820.) While it is true that most of the evidence was agreed upon by the parties at the conference, plaintiff did offer additional testimony on facts on which they were unable to agree. The offer of this testimony was refused by the court on the ground it was immaterial, and he rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on the pleadings and stipulations. If the plaintiff was to protect her record for appellate review on trial errors, it was necessary for her to file a motion for a new trial and reoffer the excluded testimony. The record discloses that it was the last day of the term, no court reporter was present, and the plaintiff was denied her right to reoffer the evidence for the purpose of appeal. The court could not limit her right to appeal by stating that she could appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer, and thereby refuse to hear her motion for a new trial. Defendants contend that the plaintiff could have appealed from the court's order overruling her motion for a new trial, but her appeal would have been of no avail in the absence of reoffering the excluded testimony, and the presentation to the trial court of other trial errors complained of in their motion for a new trial.
It may be briefly stated that where a trial court on hearing of a motion for a new trial under G.S. 1949, 60-3004, ignores and refuses petitioner's request to reoffer certain rejected evidence which was presented at the trial of the cause on its merits, and fails to have a court reporter available for petitioners to make a proper record for review, refuses to hear or consider petitioner's motion for a new trial, and attempts to limit petitioner's right for appellate review, it does more than commit a mere "error of law." Such action of the court amounts to an irregularity authorizing relief by proceedings to vacate the judgment under G.S. 1949, 60-3007, Third, notwithstanding the term had passed in which such judgment was rendered, as long as such action to vacate for irregularity was commenced *422 within three years after the rendition of such judgment. (G.S. 1949, 60-3008.)
The trial court found specifically that the order of January 6, 1951, overruling plaintiff's amended motion for new trial should be vacated and set aside for irregularity in obtaining the order and we find nothing in the record to indicate the contrary or that the court abused its discretion in so ordering.
Defendants next contend the trial court erred in granting plaintiff a new trial after overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial in a prior term of court, and contend that no such authority exists under G.S. 1949, 60-3002, which provides:
In interpreting this statute, we said in Prather-Wolfe Merc. Co. v. Carnes, 135 Kan. 590, 592, 11 P.2d 1018:
In the instant case, the proceedings were taken at the pretrial conference and subsequent trial, including the stipulation as to certain evidence and the plaintiff's offer of testimony on issues not agreed upon by the parties. This record was available to the trial court when considering the motion for a new trial. The record discloses that the plaintiff reoffered the testimony which was excluded at the trial of the case on its issues. The court found after hearing the evidence that a new trial should have been granted because it was dissatisfied with the decisions of the court rendered on December 21 and 22, 1950.
The record is not clear as to all that transpired at the proceedings on the motion for a new trial. However, there is a presumption that *423 the court had the transcript of the record and read it, and in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, we must assume that the action of the court was regular and in accordance with the law. (Rothman v. Globe Construction Co., 171 Kan. 572, 235 P.2d 981.)
Trial courts are vested with a very large and extended discretion in granting new trials and new trials ought to be granted whenever in the opinion of the trial court the party asking for the new trial has not in all probability had a reasonably fair trial and has not in all probability obtained or received substantial justice. (City of Sedan v. Church, 29 Kan. 190.) When a trial court grants a new trial generally upon the ground that it is not satisfied with the verdict or for any of several reasons not specifically stated, this court does not interfere with such rulings. (Ferguson v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 159 Kan. 520, 156 P.2d 869; Bateman v. Roller, 168 Kan. 111, 211 P.2d 440.)
In view of what has been said, other questions raised on the appeal need not be discussed. The judgment of the lower court in vacating the judgment of January 6, 1951, and granting a new trial ab initio is affirmed.