History
  • No items yet
midpage
Van Tuyl v. Morrow
77 Kan. 849
Kan.
1907
Check Treatment
Per Curiam:

The error complained of in this case is that the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence. The petition in error was not filed until more than one year after the demurrer was sustained, and it is therefore too late to review the alleged *850error in this proceeding. (White v. Railway Co., 74 Kan. 778, 88 Pac. 54; Corum v. Hubbard, 69 Kan. 608, 77 Pac. 530; Milling Co. v. Buoy, 71 Kan. 293, 80 Pac. 591; Railway Co. v. Murphy, 75 Kan. 707, 90 Pac. 290.)

No motion for a new trial was necessary, and the filing of such motion did not have the effect to extend the time for making and serving a case or applying for an extension of the time allowed by the statute. (White v. Railway Co., 74 Kan. 778, 88 Pac. 54; Wagner v. Railway Co., 73 Kan. 283, 85 Pac. 299.)

The motion to dismiss is therefore allowed.

Case Details

Case Name: Van Tuyl v. Morrow
Court Name: Supreme Court of Kansas
Date Published: Oct 5, 1907
Citation: 77 Kan. 849
Docket Number: No. 15,175
Court Abbreviation: Kan.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.