Comerford v. Groves
J. B. Comerford v. Robert Groves and Mary Groves
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.
The opinion of the court was delivered by WEST, J.-
This case involves 15 years’ dealing between the plaintiff and the defendants, all of which was carefully gone over by the referee whose report was approved by -the trial court and judgment entered thereon for the plaintiff.
The defendants, in their appeal, claim that the evidence showed a mutual mistake touching certain credits, and that they should be held to have paid more than the amount indicated by the verdict; but these are matters of fact considered by the referee and concluded by his approved report. (Smith v. Harris, 88 Kan. 226 , 128 Pac. 378 .)
Besides, no motion for a new trial was filed, and hence no error not apparent on the face of the record can be considered, and none appears. (Bank v. Refining Co., 89 Kan. 738 , 132 Pac. 832 ; Milling Co. v. Schreiber, 102 Kan. 172, 174 , 169 Pac. 222 .)
The judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 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.