Coffeyville Gas Co. v. Dooley
The Coffeyville Gas Company v. H. C. Dooley, as Partners, etc.
Syllabus
Summary
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:-
The defendants in error brought this action to recover for legal services alleged to have been performed by them for the Coffeyville ■ Gas Company upon its request. The defendant as an answer filed *759 its general denial. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs.
The petition in error does not assign as error the denying of the defendant’s motion for a new trial; therefore no questions arising upon the trial of the cause can be considered by this court. (Struthers v. Fuller, 45 Kan. 735 , 26 Pac. 471 ; Dryden v. C. K. & N. Rly. Co., 47 Kan. 445 , 28 Pac. 153 ; National Bank v. Jaffray, 41 Kan. 691 , 19 Pac. 626 ; Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524 ; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72 , 19 Pac. 327 ; Binns v. Adams, 54 Kan. 615 , 38 Pac. 792 ; Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 Kan. 448 , 28 Pac. 154 ; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129 , 23 Pac. 109 .)
The errors assigned raise questions arising upon the trial and cannot be considered by this court.
The judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.