TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gamble v. Hodges

Ebenezer J. Gamble v. W. B. Hodges

Gamble v. Hodges, 17 Kan. 24 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1876
Judges
Valentine
Citations
17 Kan. 24
Headnotes
Assignment oe Error; When Judgment will he Affirmed. Where the only assignment of error is, that the judgment was given for the defendant when it ought to have been given for the plaintiff, and the findings are sufficient to sustain the. judgment, and seem to be correct, and no motion was made to set aside the findings, or for a new trial, and no exceptions were taken by the plaintiff to any ruling, finding or decision made in the case, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
Summary
Error from, Cowley Eistriet Court. Replevin. The material questions are stated in the opinion. Trial, and judgment for defendant, at October Term 1874. The plaintiff brings the case here on error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Valentine

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Valentine, J.:

This was an action of replevin, brought by Ebenezer J. Gamble against W. B. Hodges. The judgment in the court below was in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff now brings the case to this court. He assigns for error in this court, “That the said judgment was given for the said Hodges when it ought to have been given for the said Gamble, according to the law of the land.” (See Brown v. Rhodes, 1 Kas. 359 ; Green v. Dunn, 5 Kas. 262 .) This is the only error assigned. The case was tried in the court below, without a jury. The court found generally in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in the following words: “The said court, after hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel, doth find that, at the time of the commencement -of this action the right of possession of said property was in the defendant, and that the value of said property was the sum of $108.” No motion was made to set aside this finding, or for a new trial. No exception was taken thereto; and we are inclined to think it is correct. It is certainly sufficient to sustain the judgment. “The defendant excepted to the judgment” — in these very words. But the plaintiff took no exception to the judgment, or to any ruling, finding, or decision made in the' case.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1911: 11934: 11937: 119112026peak 1911 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith114 P. 372 (Kan. 1911)
  2. Morgan v. Morgan73 P.2d 1105 (Kan. 1937)
  3. Willt v. Feikert29 P.2d 1078 (Kan. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Morgan v. Morgan73 P.2d 1105 (Kan. 1937)
  2. Willt v. Feikert29 P.2d 1078 (Kan. 1934)
  3. Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith114 P. 372 (Kan. 1911)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Brown v. Rhodes, 1 Kan. 359 (1863) 18
Green v. Dunn, 5 Kan. 254 (1869) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list