TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State Insurance v. Curry

The State Insurance Company v. William Curry

State Ins. v. Curry, 44 Kan. 741 (1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1890
Judges
Johnston
Citations
44 Kan. 741
Headnotes
Instruction — Evidence—Defective Record. In the absence of the evidence, or any statement of its purport, it cannot be said that an instruction requested by one of the parties, however correct as an abstract statement of the law, was applicable to the case, or that its refusal was material error.
Summary
Error from Butler District Court. The opinion states the case.

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

Opinion of the Court — Johnston

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

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

This was an action brought by the State Insurance Company against William Curry, to recover $33.50, alleged to be due upon a promissory note executed by Curry on December 31, 1885, in payment of a premium on a policy *742 of insurance. The answer of the defendant was, that there was a failure of consideration; that the company had not complied with the laws of the state of Kansas; and that the policy issued to Curry by the company was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The company brings the case to this court, alleging that the district court erred in not giving certain instructions which it requested.

The objection to the ruling of the court is not available, for the reason that neither the evidence nor any statement of its purport is preserved in the record. In the absence of the evidence, it- cannot be said that an instruction, however correct as an abstract statement of the law, was applicable to the case, or that its refusal was material error. (Auld v. Kimberlin, 7 Kas. 601 ; Town of LeRoy v. McConnell, 8 id. 273; Head v. Dyson, 31 id. 74; Comm’rs of Allen Co. v. Boyd, 31 id. 765; Stetler v. King, 43 id. 316.)

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

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

1894: 11907: 11911: 11914: 11915: 118942026peak 1894 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Giles v. Ternes143 P. 491 (Kan. 1914)
  2. Summers v. Alexander1911 OK 442, 120 P. 601
  3. Hanson v. Kendt146 P. 1190 (Kan. 1915)
  4. Woodford v. Wichita Railroad & Light Co.92 P. 1133 (Kan. 1907)
  5. State v. Forline54 Kan. 69 (1894)

Most recent

  1. Hanson v. Kendt146 P. 1190 (Kan. 1915)
  2. Giles v. Ternes143 P. 491 (Kan. 1914)
  3. Summers v. Alexander1911 OK 442, 120 P. 601
  4. Woodford v. Wichita Railroad & Light Co.92 P. 1133 (Kan. 1907)
  5. State v. Forline54 Kan. 69 (1894)

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
Auld v. Kimberlin, 7 Kan. 601 (1871) 11

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