Cohen v. Hamill
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Bow-Toon District Cowrt. The action below was originally commenced by Joseph Hamill and J. H. Brochrwire, as partners: Defendant answered setting up several defenses. Tlie questions determined are those of practice growing out of the fact that an amended petition was filed in the case. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Error from Bow-Toon District Cowrt. The action below was originally commenced by Joseph Hamill and J. H. Brochrwire, as partners: Defendant answered setting up several defenses. Tlie questions determined are those of practice growing out of the fact that an amended petition was filed in the case. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. The case was heard in the court below, at the March Term, 1871. Judgment was given in favor of Hamill, and Cohen brings the case here on error.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Yalentine, J.:
Hamill and Eroekmire, as partners, brought their action on an account. The defendant Cohen answered, denying generally, etc. Trial was had before a jury. The verdict was for the plaintiffs. Die verdict was set aside and a new trial granted. The plaintiffs then amended their petition, setting up one new fact only, to-wit, that the said account had been assigned to said' Hamill, and asked that judgment be ren*622dered for TTarnffl alone. The defendant did not answer to this amended petition. Trial was again had — this time before the court…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Gray v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Steinbauer v. BondesenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Brookover v. EsterlySupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Kuhuke v. WrightSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
- Cavenaugh v. FullerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.