Title: Bradley v. Sudler
Citation: 174 Kan. 293, 255 P.2d 650
Docket Number: 38,857
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: April 11, 1953

174 Kan. 293 (1953)
255 P.2d 650
RICHARD L. BRADLEY, Appellee,
v.
MERVIN T. SUDLER, Appellant.
No. 38,857

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 11, 1953.
Henry H. Asher, of Lawrence, argued the cause, and C.M. Gorrill, Alan F. Asher and Richard A. Barber, all of Lawrence, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
No appearance was made for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WEDELL, J.:
The defendant appeals from an order overruling his motion to strike the petition and all proceedings in the case from the files.
This is the second chapter of an appeal in the same case. The appeal involves substantially the same legal question presented in the former appeal. (Bradley v. Sudler, 172 Kan. 367, 239 P.2d 921.) We there said:
"The factual background of the matter is this:
We held:
Following that decision the petition was changed only as to the amount of damages claimed. This petition now bears the names and addresses of the following attorneys:
Appellant's motion to strike the instant petition was again based on the ground the action was not shown to have been filed in conformity with the requirements of G.S. 1949, 7-104. His motion further stated:
Appellant's motion was overruled and, as previously stated, this is the ruling from which he appeals.
No briefs have been filed and no oral argument has been made here on behalf of appellee. There is no occasion for a prolonged opinion. It was error to overrule the motion.
Courts are not concerned with legislative policy or the wisdom thereof. Their province and duty is to ascertain the legislative will and to make it effective if reasonably possible to do so. (State, ex rel., v. Russell, 171 Kan. 709, 237 P.2d 363; In re Estate of Bowman, 172 Kan. 17, 238 P.2d 486.)
In the instant case no showing was made associate counsel was a resident of and maintained his law office within the fourth judicial district in which the action was filed or pending. On the contrary the petition disclosed on its face the law office of associate counsel was located in the New England Building, Topeka, Kan., which is not within the fourth judicial district.
The statute clearly covers the facts of the instant case and must be enforced.
The cause is remanded with directions to the district court to sustain appellant's motion to strike.
THIELE, J., not participating.