Leitz v. J. E. Rayner & Co.
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Marion District Court. This action was commenced by the defendants in error upon a note for $275, given by’the plaintiff in error upon a contract of purchase and warranty of a Walter A. Wood twine self-binding harvester. Three trials were had in the court below, resulting in each in a verdict for the'defendant. Each of said ' verdicts was by the court set aside, upon the ground that the same was not sustained by sufficient evidence.
Read the full summary
Error from Marion District Court. This action was commenced by the defendants in error upon a note for $275, given by’the plaintiff in error upon a contract of purchase and warranty of a Walter A. Wood twine self-binding harvester. Three trials were had in the court below, resulting in each in a verdict for the'defendant. Each of said ' verdicts was by the court set aside, upon the ground that the same was not sustained by sufficient evidence. After the second trial the defendant was allowed to file an amended defense, to which amended answer the plaintiffs filed a demurrer, upon the ground…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Glogston, C.:
In the course of the three trials of this case many rulings were made by the court, which are now urged as errors, but we shall pass them by, except the ruling of the court after the last trial by the jury. After the court sustained the demurrer to the defendant’s answer, leave was asked to amend the same, and this leave was refused by the court. We think this was error. This answer had been twice attacked by the plaintiffs before the last trial': first, by demurrer; and second, by objection to the introduction of evidence théreunder. These objections were by the court…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ball v. RankinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Continental Casualty Co. v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937