Hulme v. Diffenbacher
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from, Barton District Court. ACTION on a contract by Diffenbacher against Hulme and another. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring the case here. The opinion herein, filed March 10, 1894, states the material facts.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
AlleN, J.:
Counsel for defendant in error challenge the sufficiency of the petition in error filed in this court, and contend that it does not allege that any judgment was rendered in the court below, fails to state who the parties were, and does not make the case-made a part of the petition in error. We find the petition in error somewhat informal. The statute requires simply that it shall set forth the errors complained of, and also requires that the plaintiff in error shall file with it a transcript of the proceedings containing the final* judgment…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Turner v. ReeseSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
3Cited by10 opinions
- Whiteacre v. NicholsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1906
- Spaulding v. PolleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Whitlaw v. Illinois Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
- Horner v. Goltry & SonsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Rasberry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.