Title: Finn, Administratrix v. Veatch

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

195 Kan. 410 (1965)
407 P.2d 535
EDNA FINN, Administratrix of the Estate of William Finn, Deceased, Appellee,
v.
(SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Defendant); DR. H.J. VEATCH, Appellant.
No. 43,934

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed November 6, 1965.
R.L. White, of Pittsburg, and William Tinker, of Wichita, argued the cause, and R.L. Letton and J. Curtis Nettels, both of Pittsburg, and Arthur W. Skaer; Hugh P. Quinn; Alvin D. Herrington; Richard T. Foster; Lee H. Woodard, and William A. Hensley, all of Wichita, were with them on the briefs for the appellant, H.J. Veatch.
J. John Marshall, of Pittsburg, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This is a rehearing. The original opinion was filed June 12, 1965. (See Finn, Administratrix v. Veatch, 195 Kan. 13, 403 P.2d 189.)
A rehearing was granted, limited to the all-decisive question of whether the record disclosed valid service of summons upon appellant Veatch.
The foregoing question, while it was raised in the original hearing, was not covered in our initial opinion. Hence, it becomes our duty to correct our error in failing to do so. That, it may be stated, can only be accomplished by supplementing the statement of facts set forth in the original opinion. Such facts, which if they are not actually conceded are certainly not disputed, may be stated thus:
Following the filing of the amended petition on June 6, 1963, in the Sedgwick County district court a summons was issued on the same date by the clerk directed to the sheriff of Sedgwick County, which was in some undisclosed fashion delivered to the sheriff of *411 Crawford County and served upon Veatch by a deputy sheriff of that county. The summons was returned by the sheriff of Crawford County to the clerk of the district court of Sedgwick County with a return showing that it had been served by that official's deputy. The record makes it appear that no further attempt was ever made to obtain service of summons on Veatch in the instant case.
On July 8, 1963, the answer day specified in the foregoing summons, Veatch, through his attorneys, filed a special appearance and motion to quash service in the district court of Sedgwick County which was overruled by the district court of that county on September 9, 1963. Later Veatch's attorneys filed a motion to strike the amended petition from the files of the court which was overruled on November 18, 1963. Still later his counsel filed a demurrer to appellee's amended petition based on grounds such pleading did not state a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against Veatch and that plaintiff's purported cause of action was barred by the provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-306, Third. This demurrer was also overruled. Thereupon Veatch perfected his appeal to this court from each of the three heretofore mentioned rulings.
Under facts and circumstances so similar to those involved in the case at bar they are not distinguishable this court in Branner v. Chapman, 11 Kan. (2nd Ed.) * 118, held:
And in the opinion said:
For another decision of like import see Home Owners Loan Corp. v. Clogston, 154 Kan. 257, 118 P.2d 568, where it is held:
And said:
That the foregoing decisions are in full accord with legislative intent and mandate is fully demonstrated by applicable provisions of our statute.
See G.S. 1949, 60-2506, which reads:
See, also, G.S. 1949, 60-2513 which reads:
From what has been heretofore stated and held we have no difficulty in concluding that the trial court should have sustained appellant's motion to quash made on special appearance.
In an attempt to forestall the consequences of the conclusion just announced appellee argues Veatch waived his right to appeal by filing a motion to strike and a demurrer to the amended petition. The ruling on the demurrer to the amended petition was the first *413 appealable order appearing in the lawsuit. We cannot agree with appellee's position. See First National Bank of Topeka v. United Telephone Ass'n, 187 Kan. 29, 353 P.2d 963, where it is held:
And in the opinion said:
For just a few of the many other decisions of like import see Standard Steel Works v. Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc., 176 Kan. 121, 269 P.2d 402; Voelker v. Broadview Hotel Co., 148 Kan. 326, 81 P.2d 36, and Vann v. Railway Co., 103 Kan. 857, 176 Pac. 652.
In view of the conclusions previously announced it is neither necessary nor required that we here pass upon the trial court's rulings on appellant's motion to strike the amended petition from the files or his demurrer to that pleading.
What is here concluded leaves the conclusions reached in the original opinion, as it now appears in Finn, Administratrix v. Veatch, reported in 195 Kan. 13, 403 P.2d 189, without any force and effect.
The judgment is reversed with instructions to sustain the motion to quash.