*1 577 judgment 7. order and The sustaining of the trial in plain- court involuntary tiff’s motion to set aside by the taken him in nonsuit and granting setting аn aside affirmed, order such nonsuit are as is like- sustaining wisе its order plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and order- ing а new All concur. trial. Woolley
Charles O. et al., Resрondents, v. Gottlob Dorl et al., Appellants. (2d) 93 S. W. 1098. City Appeals. May 4,
Kansas Court of 1936.
Embry Embry respondents. <& for
Harry Kay H. B. Starling appellants. and W. for CAMPBELL, pаrties jury a and submitted the C. The waived upon former trial of cause to the court the evidence introduсed on a in judgment $727.95. this cause. The for the the sum of plaintiffs was appealed. The defendants have рlaintiffs judgment which, upon appeal trial had
In the former a court, opinion was reversed and the сause In the to this remanded. (2d) 869) fully concisely (68 and S. W. the issues and facts were unnecessary it to restate them. stated and we therefore consider judgment of the trial court was The that the defendants contend сourt, determining the former any in by evidence. This not sustainеd any property that of the “. . . there is no evidenсe appeal, said: Wilhelmina of the estatе of by as executors taken over the defendants We proceeds thereof.” have by Dorl or the Gottlob Dorl was left decidedly opinion that the of the record and are again examined the there was evidence to the that no appеal former effect holding in the any prop- received as executors defendants tending that the to show by will of Gottlob Dorl bequeathed the or devised еrty which was proof plaintiffs were not en- such the the absence of correct. In was recovеr. titled to
578 theory judgment upon the that the plaintiffs seеk to sustain
The finding of requested given facts or the of lаw were as no declarations *2 does apрeal. The rule invoked not is conclusive On the trial court of to upon was which base no evidence for reason that there apply the finding though requеsted so, to do made judgment. court, not The the of its оwn motion must by the court be finding of facts facts. The of on questions presented review. ex determining disregardеd in [State 66 Co., (2d) Maryland Casualty S. W. County v. rel. Sullivan 537.] Sperry, G., cоncurs. judgment is reversed. Thfe C., is Campbell, foregoing oрinion of PER CURIAM: —The All judgment reversed. is opinion the court. оf The adopted as the concur. Ap- Harpоle, Respondent, Wunderlich, v. Martin etc.,
Edward E. pellаnt. (2d) 1104. 93 S. W. Appeals. May 4, City Kansas Court of 1936. respondent. Pur fеet Joseph Lyons and Bon for C.
Baglcmd, &Otto Potter and Forrest appellant. P. Garrsonfor CAMPBELL, brought against C. Plaintiff this suit Martin Wun- dеrlich, doing Company business Martin Wunderlich as Construction-