TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

J. M. W. Jones Stationery & Paper Co. v. Western News Co.

J. M. W. Jones Stationery and Paper Co. v. Western News Co.

J. M. W. Jones Stationery & Paper Co. v. Western News Co., 30 Kan. 334 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1883
Citations
30 Kan. 334
Summary
The facts of this case appear in 26 Kas. 299, et seq.; 29 id., 75, et seq.; and in the opinion, infra. February 12,1883, in the district court of Shawnee county, it was ordered and adjudged that the Western News Co. and James Douglas have the sum of $160, then in the hands of the clerk of said court, which judgment the plaintiff company and Reynolds & Reynolds have brought here for review.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam:

This was an action where the parties agreed upon a case containing the facts upon which the controversy *335 depended, and presented a submission of the same to the court under the provisions of § 525 of the code. The case has been twice considered by this court. ( 26 Kas. 299 ; 29 id. 75.) After the rendition of the decision of this court at the July term for 1882, the mandate was transmitted to the district court to carry the judgment of this court into execution according to the command thereof. The court below complied therewith, and entered judgment accordingly. This order of that court is now complained of as erroneous.

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.

How later courts describe this case

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

1884–1885: 11918–1919: 118842026peak 1884 · 1

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
J. M. W. Jones Stationery & Paper Co. v. Case, 26 Kan. 299 (1881) 5

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