Case Name: L. W. Hover v. W. C. Tenney
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1882-01
Citations: 27 Kan. 133
Docket Number: 
Parties: L. W. Hover v. W. C. Tenney.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
L. W. Hover v. W. C. Tenney.
New Trial; Motion, Presumed too Late. Where a motion for a new trial for errors occurring during the trial is filed after the verdict and judgment, and the record is silent as to the date of the filing of the motion, and it appears that the motion was heard thirteen days after the verdict and judgment were rendered, and no reason is shown for any delay in the filing of the motion, it will be presumed by the supreme court, for the purpose of upholding the judgment of the court below, and the ruling of the court in overruling such motion upon the hearing thereof, that the motion was not made in time, and therefore the court below did not err in overruling it. (Bartlett v. Feeney, 11 Has. 593; Lucas v. Sturr, 21 Kas. 480.)
Error from Douglas District Court.
Eeplevin, brought by Tenney against Hover, to recover a quantity of wheat in the stack, grown upon the north sixty acres of the S.E.-|- of see. 12, tp. 15, range 18, in Douglas county. Trial November 25,1880, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here.
L. W. Hover, plaintiff in error, for himself.
John Hutchings, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
The record in this case shows that the trial was had on the 25th day of November, 1880. After the rendition of a verdict by the jury for the plaintiff below and the entry of judgment thereon, the plaintiff in error (defendant below) filed a motion for a new trial, alleging errors occurring during the trial. The record is silent as to the date of the filing of this motion, but it appears that such motion was heard on the 8th day of December, 1880, several days after the verdict and judgment were rendered. As it is not shown by the record that the motion was filed within the time required by § 308 of the code, and no reason given for delay in the filing of the motion, and as the court overruled the motion upon the hearing thereof, it will be presumed by this court, for the purpose of upholding the judgment of the court below, that the motion was not made in time, and therefore the court below did not err in overruling it. Error is never presumed; it must always be shown, and if it is not affirmatively shown, it will be presumed that no error has been committed. (Bartlett v. Feeney, 11 Kas. 593; Nesbit v. Hines, 17 Kas. 316; Lucas v. Sturr, 21 Kas. 480.) If the motion was not made in time, all errors occurring during the progress of the trial were waived.
Upon the record as presented, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.