Gleason v. Strauss
Court of Appeals of Kansas
Error from Jackson District Court. Hon. Robert Crozier, Judge. This was an action in replevin brought by the defendants in error, as plaintiffs below, against the plaintiffs in error, as defendants below. The trial was had before the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the trial court.
Read the full summary
Error from Jackson District Court. Hon. Robert Crozier, Judge. This was an action in replevin brought by the defendants in error, as plaintiffs below, against the plaintiffs in error, as defendants below. The trial was had before the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the trial court. The record, as far as it is necessary to examine it in passing upon the errors presented to this court, shows that, at the conclusion of the evidence, the court was requested to give special instructions to the jury and to submit to them special…
1Opinion of the CourtMcElroy, J.
An examination of the errors assigned requires an examination of section 279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads :
“If the jury are permitted to separate, either during the trial or after the case is submitted to them, they shall be admonished by the court that it is their duty not to converse with, or suffer themselves to be addressed by, any other person, on any subject of the trial, and that it is their duty not to form or express an opinion thereon, until the case is finally submitted to them.”
For the purpose of determining the effect to be given this statute, we will examine the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Madden v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1863
- State v. StackhouseSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- State v. MulkinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Perkins v. ErmelSupreme Court of Kansas · 1864
- Stager v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- McKnight v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904