TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Schwandt v. Ballentine

H. A. Schwandt v. O. C. Ballentine

Schwandt v. Ballentine, 173 P. 926 (Kan. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 6, 1918
Docket
No. 21,052
Judges
Dawson
Citations
173 P. 926103 Kan. 2961918 Kan. LEXIS 249
Syllabus
OPINION DENYING A REHEARING. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. Jurisdiction op Supreme Court — Matters Reviewable on Appeal. On appeal the supreme court’s jurisdiction is exclusively appellate — for the consideration and determination of errors alleged to have been committed in trial courts — and error cannot be predicated on matters not presented to the trial court; and, to uphold the constitutionality of section 580 of the civil code, such interpretation of it must be given as will not confound the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court with'its original jurisdiction.
Summary
Appeal from Pottawatomie district court; Robert C. Heizer, 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 — Dawson

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

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

The petition for a rehearing makes the criticism that the court’s opinion did not discuss the effect of a recent survey of the land boundaries and the location of the public road involved in this lawsuit. This survey was made after the case was tried in the district court, and a copy of the surveyor’s report was filed in this court, but the plaintiff made no mention of it in his brief. The court invited him to suggest what significance can be attached to that new survey in this appeal which seeks a review of errors alleged to have been made by the trial court. Plaintiff now cites section 580 of the civil code. That code provision does not help to determine the question whether the trial court committed error, and on appeal that is the only matter which this court can consider. The trial court committed no error. It correctly decided the case on the evidence presented to it. Viewed in the light of the constitution, *297 section 580 of the civil code is not so efficacious as to provide .a cure for a failure to fully present a cause in the trial court, although an uncritical reading of its text might suggest that interpretation. (See In re Burnette, 73 Kan. 609 , 85 Pac. 575 ; and Wideman v. Faivre, 100 Kan. 102, 107, 108 , 103 Pac. 619 , and discussions in cases cited therein.)

The petition for a rehearing is denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1924: 11928: 11939: 11947: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Hopkins v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.223 P. 771 (Kan. 1924)
  2. Campbell v. Ramsey92 P.2d 819 (Kan. 1939) · Dissent
  3. Jones v. Jones265 P. 66 (Kan. 1928) · Dissent
  4. Crawford v. Crawford181 P.2d 526 (Kan. 1947)

Most recent

  1. Crawford v. Crawford181 P.2d 526 (Kan. 1947)
  2. Campbell v. Ramsey92 P.2d 819 (Kan. 1939) · Dissent
  3. Jones v. Jones265 P. 66 (Kan. 1928) · Dissent
  4. State ex rel. Hopkins v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.223 P. 771 (Kan. 1924)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Disbarment of Burnette, 85 P. 575 (Kan. 1906) 45
Wideman v. Faivre, 163 P. 619 (Kan. 1917) 32

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