Case Name: William Pennock, et al. v. Mary Thorp Monroe
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1870-03
Citations: 5 Kan. 586
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Pennock, et al. v. Mary Thorp Monroe.
Judges: Kingman, C. J., concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 586–588

Head Matter:
William Pennock, et al. v. Mary Thorp Monroe.
Error from Franklin County.
Record. — A record which refers to the facts found and admitted in another case, as those upon which trial was had in the case set out in such record, does not present a case which this court will look into, unless it is clearly shown that such other case, or enough of it to show what were the facts found and admitted therein, is in this court and is fully identified.
The body of the petition, the sufficiency of which is involved in this case, is as follows:
“ The plaintiff, Mary Thorp Monroe, complains of the defendants, William Pennock, C. B. Parkinson, Jonathan Parkinson and William Bleak, and states to the court that she is the owner in fee simple of the east half of section twelve (12), township seventeen (17), and range seventeen (17), containing three hundred and twenty acres, situate in said county of Branklin, and is entitled to the immediate possession of the same; that the said defendants unlawfully kept her out of possession of said premises, to her damage in the sum of five thousand dollars, wherefore, plaintiff prays restitution of said premises, and for judgment against the defendants in the sum of five thousand dollars and costs.”
The journal entry in the case shows that the facts of the case were agreed to be the same as the facts found by a jury in another ease of the same title; but the record does not identify further the case referred to, nor disclose what those facts are. The case was tried by the court; and no motion for a new trial appears. The judgment was for the plaintiff below of restitution and damages. The case is brought here to reverse that judgment.
Mason Welsh, for plaintiff in error.
Thaeher Banks, for defendant in error.
Thaeher Banks, for defendant in error, submitted:
1. The record brought into this court leaves nothing for the court to act upon. The suit was an ordinary action in ejectment. The record does not disclose the testimony. It will be presumed to have been sufficient to sustain the judgment. Bamb v. 1st Pres. Soc., 20 Iowa, 127; Sisson v. Barrett, 2 N. Y.,406.
2. The petition sets forth a cause of action in ejectment. The finding of the court is generally for plaintiff below. No motion for a new trial was made, and no request that the court find the facts and law separately. The judgment cannot be reversed.' Cleveland Toledo R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 10 Ohio St., 591, Civ. Code, § 290.
3. There are no exceptions preserved that can be made available. Civ. Code, §§ 302, 303.
Pleadings : Petition, Sufficiency of. — A petition whicli alleges substantially that plaintiff owns, in iee simple, land; describing it, and is entitled to the immediate possession of the same; that defendant unlawfully kept her out of possession of said premises to her damage in a sum named, praying restitution and a sum named as damages; sets forth facts sufficient to constitute-a cause of action.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Saeeord, J.
Owing to the defective condition of the record in this case, it is not to be expected that this court will pass upon the questions which may be involved therein, at least to any considerable extent.
Eecob». We have the final determination of the case in the court below before us, but none of the evidence, or of the facts found upon which the court acted, are here in any proper authenticated manner. It is true, there is an attempt to refer to the facts found and admitted in another case, as being the same as those upon which this case was heard and tided. But we do not think that this is sufficient, unless it is clearly shown that such other case, or at least enough of it to show what were the facts so found and admitted therein, is in this court and is fully identified, and this is not done. If indeed the facts of this case were in every respect the same as in the ease intended to be referred to, a statement to that effect, and an incorporation into this record of such facts, or such other, identification as would be conclusive as to what was so brought to our notice, is certainly the least that ought to be required; and for the reason that, if a different course were pursued, we should partly at least (for there might be more than one case answering to the description given) be guessing at the facts, or at what the record may be supposed to contain. This is no part of our duty.
There is one question, however, which is raised by the petition in error, and which depends upon the construction to be given to the petition filed below: Bid such petition contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?
ciencyof. The action was for the recovery of real estate, and based upon the statute. [Civil Proc., Art. 24, Gen. Stat.] We have compared the petition with the requirements of section 595 in said article, which provides what such a petition shall contain, and find that it conforms thereto in every respect. The petition must therefore be held sufficient. Judgment affirmed.
Kingman, C. J., concurring.
Valentine, J., not sitting in the case.