Court Opinion

ID: 9536665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:04:47.025932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:56.813782
License: Public Domain

Price, J.,
dissenting: Notwithstanding the fact I concede the correctness of the legal principles stated in the court’s opinion, and upon which this case has been decided, I am unable to bring myself to agree to the result which has been reached. The decision validates a Kansas judgment, which, for its very existence, is dependent upon a California judgment, when, in truth and in fact, the California judgment has been vacated and set aside by the courts of that state in Barnes v. Hilton, 118 C. A. 2d, 108, 257 P. 2d 98, decided on May 25, 1953. I concede that counsel who represented defendant in the trial court did not comply with statutory procedure, and that from a strictly technical standpoint the decision reached is undoubtedly sound. However, my thought is, particularly in the very anomalous circumstances before us, that rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but rather are means by which correct results can be obtained. G. S. 1949, 60-3317, provides in part:
*650. . and in any case pending before it, the [supreme] court shall render such final judgment as it deems that justice requires, or direct such judgment to be rendered by the court from which the appeal was taken, without regard to technical errors and irregularities in the proceedings of the trial court.”
The cold facts being what they are, it is my opinion that under the authority given to this court by the above statute the judgment in this case should be reversed. For that reason I respectfully dissent.