Title: Fields v. Blue Stem Feed Yards

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

195 Kan. 167 (1965)
403 P.2d 796
DALE FIELDS and MRS. DALE FIELDS (Helen A. Fields), Appellees,
v.
BLUE STEM FEED YARDS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, and ANDERSON CATTLE COMPANY, INC., a corporation, CATTLEMEN'S FEED LOTS, INC., a corporation, Defendants.
No. 43,411

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 10, 1965.
Glenn D. Young, Jr., of Wichita, and Russ B. Anderson, of Emporia, argued the cause, and W.F. Lilleston, George C. Spradling, Henry V. Gott, George Stallwitz, Ralph M. Hope, Ronald M. Gott, Richard W. Stavely, Charles S. Lindberg and Edward H. Graham, all of the Wichita, were with them on the briefs for the appellant.
Frank C. Sabatini, of Topeka, argued the cause, and O.B. Eidson, Philip H. Lewis, James W. Porter, Charles S. Fisher, William G. Haynes, Roscoe E. Long, Peter Caldwell, Austin Nothern and Brock Snyder, all of Topeka, and George L. Allred, of Emporia, were with him on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This is an appeal from a judgment in a civil action brought by the plaintiffs, Dale and Helen Fields, husband and wife, against the defendants, Blue Stem Feed Yards, Inc., Anderson Cattle Company, Inc. and Cattlemen's Feed Lots, Inc.
The action sought the recovery of permanent damages for the depreciation in value of plaintiffs' home caused by the operation of the defendants' livestock feed lots. The appellees also sought damages for pain and suffering and mental anguish and further sought an order permanently enjoining the defendants from operating their feed lots. At the close of all the evidence the court sustained a demurrer by the Anderson Cattle Company to the plaintiffs' evidence. The case was tried to a jury and the jury answered certain special *168 questions and returned a general verdict in favor of the appellees for a total of $4,500, assessing $3,000 as damages against Cattlemen's Feed Lots and $1,500 as damages against Blue Stem Feed Yards.
This particular appeal was filed by the Blue Stem Feed Yards challenging certain instructions given by the jury and certain special questions, some of which were given and some refused.
At the outset we are confronted with the appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the right to appeal was governed solely by the provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-3314 which reads:
This is the fourth appeal arising out of the same pleadings, trial, findings of fact, general verdict and judgment. The first case considered was Fields v. Anderson Cattle Co., 193 Kan. 558, 396 P.2d 276, in which the Fields were appellants and the three defendants were appellees. This case was heard and determined on its merits. The second appeal was also styled Fields v. Anderson Cattle Co. and reported in 193 Kan. 569, 396 P.2d 284. This appeal was taken by the Anderson Cattle Company and the Blue Stem Feed Yards. It was dismissed. The court stated in the syllabus:
The third appeal was filed by the Fields and dismissed on their motion.
The appellant, Blue Stem Feed Yards, Inc., suggests that a cross-appeal could not be taken on the issues here presented because it first had to exhaust its remedy by way of a motion for a new trial. The suggestion is without merit.
Where one party to a judgment appeals from matters which may be reviewed without a motion for a new trial, the opposing party, if aggrieved by any rulings or decisions, may cross-appeal without first filing a motion for a new trial, even though a motion for a new trial was a prerequisite to an appeal in certain cases under the old code.
*169 In Walker v. S.H. Kress & Co., 147 Kan. 48, 75 P.2d 820, we held:
We also stated beginning on page 55 of the opinion:
..............
..............
This appeal was under the old code. It might, therefore, be suggested that had appellant desired a ruling on a motion for new trial it could have made such application and had the trial court corrected any of the alleged errors, it could have amended its notice of cross-appeal or abandoned its contentions. In Mathias v. Dickerson, 179 Kan. 739, 298 P.2d 219, it is stated:
*170 An appeal does not prevent the trial court from considering questions presented on a motion for a new trial.
In Carr v. Diamond, 192 Kan. 377, 379, 388 P.2d 591, we said:
We adhere to the rule announced in Fields v. Anderson Cattle Co., 193 Kan. 569, 396 P.2d 284.
The appeal is dismissed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.