Court Opinion

ID: 9559751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:35:03.816667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:38.363022
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(dissenting): I dissent. It is well settled that the court may change any order during the term in which it is made. (See Isenhart v. Powers, 135 Kan. 111, 9 P. 2d 988; and Rasing v. Healzer, *626157 Kan. 516, 142 P. 2d 832.) The rule is too well settled to need any further discussion. This opinion cites Bailey v. Bailey, 164 Kan. 653, 192 P. 2d 190, as authority for holding that notice was required in this case. The order in that case was changed at a subsequent term — hence the opinion is not authority for holding that notice was required here. I think the court could have changed this judgment on its own motion. This holding would not work any injustice on the parties. The court in this case stated:
“I will hear it, and I will, of course if she later comes into court and attacks any order made here this morning, she will have a right to do that.”
All parties could have had a fair hearing if the plaintiff had come to court and asked to have the change reconsidered. All parties would have been in court. As this case is now decided, the defendant is helpless. His former wife has taken the child beyond the jurisdiction of the court and under this opinion he is without recourse to attain any relief. We have violated a rule as well established as any procedural rule in our books, that is, that the court may change any order during the term in which it was issued with or without notice.