30 Kan. 334 | Kan. | 1883
This was an action where the parties agreed upon a case containing the facts upon which the controversy
It is asserted that the defendants in error acquiesced in the former judgment of the trial court from which proceedings in error were prosecuted to this court, and that therefore they are not entitled to have their judgments paid until after those of the plaintiffs in error are satisfied. As the trial court merely obeyed the order of this court in entering its judgment, its ruling and order cannot be reversed. (Duffitt & Ramsey v. Crozier, ante, p. 150.)
If it is desired to change or set aside the judgment of this court which the mandate was intended fcrenforce, a rehearing must be applied for. As all of the parties in the original . controversy signed the agreed statement of facts of January 17, 1881, and also the subsequent agreed statement of facts, and were all affected by the judgment of the trial court, this court passed upon the cause as an equitable proceeding, and examined and disposed of the rights of all the parties, so far as legal principles would permit, in a purely equitable manner, and as if the parties to the original controversy were before this court.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.