Soper v. Medberry
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Miami District Court. At the May Term, 1877, the district court granted a new trial in a certain action, as prayed for by H. N. Medberry, Penn Yetter, F. M. Shaw, and C. A. Leighton. The adverse parties, Soper, Brainard & Go., bring the case here. The •opinion sufficiently states the facts.
Read the full summary
Error from Miami District Court. At the May Term, 1877, the district court granted a new trial in a certain action, as prayed for by H. N. Medberry, Penn Yetter, F. M. Shaw, and C. A. Leighton. The adverse parties, Soper, Brainard & Go., bring the case here. The •opinion sufficiently states the facts. The petition for a new trial does not state a single act done •or inquiry made by the petitioners, or by their counsel, previous to the impanneling of the jury, as to their feelings toward the defendants, Shaw and Leighton; and it fails to allege that petitioner’s counsel was ignorant of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
This was an application by petition for a new trial. The court below granted the new trial and the adverse parties now. (as plaintiffs in error) bring the case to this court, asking for a reversal of the ruling, order and judgment of the court below granting a new trial. The trial in the original case was had and the proper judgment rendered therein at the December term of the district court, (December 12, 1872,) and the petition for the new trial was filed March 29, 1877.' The only ground set forth for the new trial was, that the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Medberry, Yetter & Co. v. Soper, Brainard & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1877
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. HessSupreme Court of Kansas · 1956
- Delay v. YostSupreme Court of Kansas · 1898
- List v. JockheckSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- United States Banking Co. v. VealeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- Boyer v. ChampenySupreme Court of Kansas · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.