May, Weil & Co. v. Ham
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Atchison District Cowrt. Action by the firm of J. A. Ham & Co. to recover from the firm of May, Weil & Co. certain alleged indebtedness. The cause was tried at the July Term 1872 of the district court. Verdiet for plaintiffs for $2,316.50. Defendants moved for a new trial, and one of the grounds assigned was alleged misconduct on the part of one of the plaintiffs. New trial refused, and judgment on the verdict, and the' defendants bring the case here for review.
Read the full summary
Error from Atchison District Cowrt. Action by the firm of J. A. Ham & Co. to recover from the firm of May, Weil & Co. certain alleged indebtedness. The cause was tried at the July Term 1872 of the district court. Verdiet for plaintiffs for $2,316.50. Defendants moved for a new trial, and one of the grounds assigned was alleged misconduct on the part of one of the plaintiffs. New trial refused, and judgment on the verdict, and the' defendants bring the case here for review. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. It was shown…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
The judgment in this case must be reversed and a new trial granted for misconduct of the plain*601tiffs below, (defendants in error.) Some time before the trial of the cause all the regular jurors were excused by the court except six. The court then ordered that the sheriff summon twelve additional jurors for the term. Soon after this, J. A. Ham, one of the plaintiffs below, who had long resided in the city of Atchison, and was acquainted throughout the county of Atchison, approached said sheriff and handed to him a list of persons, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hanks v. Yellow Cab & Baggage Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1922
- Peterson v. SiglingerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- Phares v. KrhutSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907