Title: White v. Hutton

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

205 Kan. 715 (1970)
472 P.2d 223
EVA HUTTON WHITE, Appellee,
v.
SCOTT HUTTON and DELLA HUTTON, Appellants.
No. 45,758

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 17, 1970.
Jim Mangan, of Mangan and Dalton, of Dodge City, argued the cause, and Jack Dalton, of Mangan and Dalton, of Dodge City, was with him on the brief for the appellants.
Douglas B. Myers, of Dodge City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This is an appeal from a judgment in a quiet title action. The only question raised is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.
The plaintiff, Eva Hutton White, brought an action against Scott Hutton and others to quiet title to a house and lots in Bucklin, Kansas. It is not disputed that the property was conveyed to her by her father and mother in 1950. (See Hutton v. Hutton, 184 Kan. 560, 337 P.2d 635.)
The defendant, Scott Hutton, answered alleging in part:
The plaintiff replied stating:
The case was tried to the court. The trial court found that 
and concluded:
The defendant, Scott Hutton, has appealed. His chief contention is that there was no substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's finding that Eva Hutton White was the sole owner of the real property in question.
It may be stated that there was substantial competent evidence, both documentary and circumstantial, from which inferences could be drawn in favor of or against either party. However, both parties testified as to the disputed issue. Scott Hutton testified:
"A. I can't recall that there was very much said.
"Q. Well, whatever you can recall.
"A. Yes."
Eva Hutton White testified on her own behalf as follows:
"A. No.
"Q. Did he ever ask you for half of it?
"A. Yes.
"Q. When was that, Mrs. White?
"A. I suppose that was about '64 or '65.
"Q. Do you remember where this took place?
"A. In my house.
"Q. Was anyone present other than you and Scott?
"A. No.
"Q. Tell the Court what was said by each of you.
*717 "Q. Did you offer to give him half of it?
"A. I didn't offer to give him half of the house.
"A. Just over the house.
"Q. Did he leave or did you leave or what?
"A. He left."
Although the evidence was conflicting, there was substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the trial court.
It is not the function of this court to weigh conflicting evidence or to substitute our judgment for that of the court which heard the case. (Hoppe v. Hoppe, 181 Kan. 428, 312 P.2d 215; Preston v. Preston, 193 Kan. 379, 394 P.2d 43; Saint v. Saint, 196 Kan. 330, 411 P.2d 683.) The appellate court will review the evidence only for the purpose of determining its sufficiency to support the findings (Smith v. Mr. D's, Inc., 197 Kan. 83, 415 P.2d 251; First National Bank of Topeka v. Hiatt, 201 Kan. 50, 439 P.2d 373) and the evidence is to be viewed in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. (Schroeder v. Richardson, 196 Kan. 363, 411 P.2d 670.) Neither do we pass on the credibility of the witnesses. (Finnell v. Patrons Co-operative Bank, 193 Kan. 354, 394 P.2d 116; Schroeder v. Richardson, supra.)
An examination of the record discloses substantial competent evidence to support the findings upon which the judgment is based.
The judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.