TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Board of Commissioners v. Scott

The Board of Commissioners of Elk County v. L. Scott

Bd. of Comm'rs v. Scott, 51 Kan. 139 (1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1893
Judges
Johnston
Citations
51 Kan. 139
Headnotes
Review — Certificate to Transcript. To secure a review of the rulings and judgment of the district court upon a transcript,-it is essential that the certificate of the clerk attached should show that it is full and complete.
Summary
Error from, Elk District Court. Action by the County Board against Scott and others to recover money alleged to have been wrongfully allowed and paid said Scott for services as county attorney. Judgment for defendants at the May term, 1889. The plaintiff comes to this court.

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.:

In an action brought by the board of county commissioners of Elk county against L. Scott, formerly county attorney of that county, to recover $75.37, alleged to have been wrongfully allowed and paid to him for services as county attorney, and also to recover a certain penalty and attorney’s fee, judgment was given in favor of the defendant. To secure a review of the rulings and judgment of the district court, the plaintiff brings to this court what purports to be a transcript of the record; but it is plainly insufficient. The certificate of the clerk fails to show that it is a complete transcript of the entire record, and this is essential. He certifies that it contains a true transcript of the petition, demurrer, and journal entry; but there may have been other pleadings, orders and entries than those contained in this record. Indeed, it appears from the allegations of the petition itself that important parts of that pleading are omitted from the record. The claims alleged to have been unlawfully allowed and paid are referred to as exhibits attached to and made a part of the petition, but an examination shows that they are not attached, nor can they be found in the record. To secure a review upon a transcript, the certificate of the clerk attached to the record should show that it is full and complete, and,.failing in this respect, the present proceedings must be dismissed. (Neiswender v. James, 41 Kas. 463 )

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

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

1908: 119082026peak 1908 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Snider v. Windsor93 P. 600 (Kan. 1908)

Most recent

  1. Snider v. Windsor93 P. 600 (Kan. 1908)

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
Neiswender v. James, 41 Kan. 463 (1889) 12

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