Coffeyville Gas Co. v. Dooley
Coffeyville Gas Co. v. Dooley
Opinion of the Court
The defendants in error brought this action to recover for legal services alleged to have been performed by them for the Coffeyville ■ Gas Company upon its request. The defendant as an answer filed
The petition in error does not assign as error the denying of the defendant’s motion for a new trial; therefore no questions arising upon the trial of the cause can be considered by this court. (Struthers v. Fuller, 45 Kan. 735, 26 Pac. 471; Dryden v. C. K. & N. Rly. Co., 47 Kan. 445, 28 Pac. 153; National Bank v. Jaffray, 41 Kan. 691, 19 Pac. 626; Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 Pac. 327; Binns v. Adams, 54 Kan. 615, 38 Pac. 792; Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 Kan. 448, 28 Pac. 154; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129, 23 Pac. 109.)
The errors assigned raise questions arising upon the trial and cannot be considered by this court.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The Coffeyville Gas Company v. H. C. Dooley, as Partners, etc.
- Cited By
- 10 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Practice, Supreme Court — Assignments of Error — Motion for a New Trial. Consideration of questions arising upon the trial refused because the petition in error did not assign as error the denial of a motion for a new trial.