TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leverton v. Rork

G. W. Leverton v. Daniel Rork et ux.

Leverton v. Rork, 85 P. 800 (Kan. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 9, 1906
Docket
No. 14,372
Citations
85 P. 80074 Kan. 8321906 Kan. LEXIS 150
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Practice, Supreme Court — Finding that Deed Was a Mortgage ■ — Review. Where the trial court found, upon substantial testimony, that a deed absolute upon its face was a mortgage, it was said that the rule requiring clear and convincing proof in such cases did not authorize this court to retry the facts.
Summary
Error from' Atchison district court; Benjamin F. Hudson, judge.

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:

In this case the findings of fact are supported by the evidence and justify the judgment of the court. The principal question was whether certain transactions, including the giving of instruments in the form of deeds, were intended as a transfer of the title to land or only as security for money loaned. The • court found, upon substantial testimony, that deeds absolute on their' faces were mortgages. It is insisted that the evidence in such cases should be clear, cogent, and convincing; that the testimony produced was not up to that standard; and that this court should now review and reweigh the evidence to determine its sufficiency. The district court was the trier of the facts, and presumably did apply the proper test in weighing the evidence. Its findings, when supported by substantial testimony, are binding upon this court. The existence of the rule requiring clear and convincing proof does not authorize this court to retry the facts. In this case, as in any other civil case, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight- of the testimony belong to the trial court, and its finding will not be.disturbed although we might arrive at a different conclusion from the evidence. Even in a criminal case, where the guilt of the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a verdict supported by substantial testimony is conclusive upon the reviewing court.'

There is nothing substantial in the objections to the rulings upon evidence, nor do we find any ground for the reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 11913: 11923: 11926: 11937: 11938: 11949: 11973: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shoemake v. Davis73 P.2d 1043 (Kan. 1937)
  2. Bradbury v. Wise208 P.2d 209 (Kan. 1949)
  3. Hoover v. Hopkins251 P. 411 (Kan. 1926)
  4. Klein v. Blackshere215 P. 315 (Kan. 1923)
  5. Kull v. Pearl76 P.2d 790 (Kan. 1938)
  6. Johnson v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.135 P. 589 (Kan. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Wehking v. Wehking516 P.2d 1018 (Kan. 1973)
  2. Bradbury v. Wise208 P.2d 209 (Kan. 1949)
  3. Kull v. Pearl76 P.2d 790 (Kan. 1938)
  4. Shoemake v. Davis73 P.2d 1043 (Kan. 1937)
  5. Hoover v. Hopkins251 P. 411 (Kan. 1926)
  6. Klein v. Blackshere215 P. 315 (Kan. 1923)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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