Case Name: W. C. Mastin v. Allen Graham, et al.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1878-01
Citations: 20 Kan. 304
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. C. Mastin v. Allen Graham, et al.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
W. C. Mastin v. Allen Graham, et al.
Practice; Saving and Preserving Alleged Errors; Incomplete Record. Where proceedings are prosecuted in a civil action in the supreme court to reverse a judgment of. the district court for alleged error in the admission of incompetent evidence, and because that the findings of fact are against the testimony, and the judgment is unwarranted, and there is presented in the record only the testimony, the findings of fact and law, the judgment, and motion for a new trial, held, that as the pleadings are neither copied in full, nor referred to, nor their substance given, nor any statement of the issues raised by them, or the admissions made in them, the-judgment of the court below must necessarily be affirmed.
Error from, Montgomery District Court.
Graham and another, as plaintiffs, had judgment at March Term 1876, and Mastín brings the cáse here.
W. A. Peffer, and Johnson & Davis, for plaintiff in error.
D. W. Dunnett, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hortón, C. J.:
It is alleged in the brief of plaintiff in error, that this action was originally brought before a justice of the peace for the possession of a horse, and that the plaintiff in error, before such justice, recovered judgment, and upon appeal to the district court judgment was given for defendants in error. The judgment in the record is for a return of the property to the defendants in error, if a return thereof can be had, and if a return thereof cannot be had, for the value of the interest of defendants, to-wit, two dollars, and for the costs. But while the testimony, and the conclusions of fact and law, are preserved in the record, and the judgment and motion for a new trial are also contained therein, the pleadings are not. Neither is there any statement of their purport or substance. Nor can we tell what issues were raised by them, nor the admissions made in them. Eor manifest and manifold reasons, with such a record, the judgment of the court must be affirmed. The alleged errors attempted to be presented, are, the admission of incompetent testimony in behalf of the defendants, that the judgment for two dollars was not supported by the evidence, and that the court had no right to adjudicate a lien in the action. In the absence of the pleadings, and any statement of what they contain, we cannot say whether any substantial error was committed. Ort v. Patrick, 18 Kas. 382.
The judgment will be affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.