Legal Opinion · Dissent

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Preston

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 7, 1901No. 11,792Published

Error from Marshall district court; F. W. Sturgjss, judge pro tem.

1DissentPollock, J.

Recognizing to the fullest extent the importance of uniformity and harmony in the decision of this court, and especially in the matter of practice, I dissent from the doctrine announced in the fourth paragraph of the syllabus and the corresponding portion of the opinion.

Realizing the effect of this decision to be forever to put at rest the question of the power of a judge pro teto. in the settling of a case-mad.e for this court, in the absence of further legislation, yet I deem the decision made so utterly and entirely at variance with a correct interpretation and construction of the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Staser v. HoganIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  2. M. K. & T. Railway Co. v. City of Fort ScottSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
  3. Hill v. First National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
  4. Citizens' National Bank v. GrahamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  5. Bacon v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1886

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API