Legal Opinion

Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Frazier

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided December 5, 1896No. 125PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error from Marshall District Court. Hon. R. B. Spilman, Judge.

1Opinion of the Court

*203 1 Rules concerning briefs cannot be disregarded.

Giliceson, P. J.

Our attention is called to the fact that in.some respects the brief of the plaintiff in error is not in conformity with rule five of this court. We can add to this that it does not in any respect con*203form thereto, except that it is printed. It consists of nine pages and is styled “ Statements of Facts,” without a specification of error separately and particularly set out therein. Ob-x ° jections to the admission and rejection of testimony are strewn all through it, without quoting any of the evidence ; criticisms upon…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Champion Machine Co. v. MannSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
  2. Baker v. SearsCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1895

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kingman & Co. v. WatsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Hale v. Van Buren, Heck & Marvin Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  3. Harrison v. Russell & Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1906

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

Powered by the Exa API