case squarely within rule in Kansas

1959It is enough to say we have carefully examined all contentions advanced by the parties, as well, as the authorities cited in support thereof, and are convinced that the facts presented by the record bring this case squarely within the rule announced in Stelzner v. Iron Clad Store Co., 123 Kan. 772 , 256 Pac. 818 , to which we adhere, where it is held: “It is error to appoint a receiver for a corporation on the day the action is commenced where no notice of the application for such appointment is given and where the only relief asked by the plaintiff against the defendant corporation is that th

1959It is enough to say we have carefully examined all contentions advanced by the parties, as well, as the authorities cited in support thereof, and are convinced that the facts presented by the record bring this case squarely within the rule announced in Stelzner v. Iron Clad Store Co., 123 Kan. 772 , 256 Pac. 818 , to which we adhere, where it is held: “It is error to appoint a receiver for a corporation on the day the action is commenced where no notice of the application for such appointment is given and where the only relief asked by the plaintiff against the defendant corporation is that th

1953It cannot be denied the record does clearly reveal a situation which brings this phase of the case squarely within the rule announced in Rierson v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 30 , 69 P. 2d 1 , and adhered to in Brick v. Fire Insurance Co., 117 Kan. 44 , 230 Pac. 309 ; Butts v. Kan.

1953It cannot be denied the record does clearly reveal a situation which brings this phase of the case squarely within the rule announced in Rierson v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 30 , 69 P. 2d 1 , and adhered to in Brick v. Fire Insurance Co., 117 Kan. 44 , 230 Pac. 309 ; Butts v. Kan.

1953It cannot be denied the record does clearly reveal a situation which brings this phase of the case squarely within the rule announced in Rierson v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 30 , 69 P. 2d 1 , and adhered to in Brick v. Fire Insurance Co., 117 Kan. 44 , 230 Pac. 309 ; Butts v. Kan.

1953It cannot be denied the record does clearly reveal a situation which brings this phase of the case squarely within the rule announced in Rierson v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 30 , 69 P. 2d 1 , and adhered to in Brick v. Fire Insurance Co., 117 Kan. 44 , 230 Pac. 309 ; Butts v. Kan.

1953Power & Light Co., 165 Kan. 477 , 195 P. 2d 567 , wherein we held: “Errors of the trial court occurring during the trial and which constitute grounds for a new trial, to be reviewable on appeal, must have been brought to the attention of the trial court on a motion for a new trial, and if such errors are not specifically pointed out in the motion or upon the presentation of the motion, and no opportunity is given to the court to consider and correct such errors, they will as a general rule be regarded as waived.” (Syl. ¶ 1.) The judgment is affirmed.

1953Power & Light Co., 165 Kan. 477 , 195 P. 2d 567 , wherein we held: “Errors of the trial court occurring during the trial and which constitute grounds for a new trial, to be reviewable on appeal, must have been brought to the attention of the trial court on a motion for a new trial, and if such errors are not specifically pointed out in the motion or upon the presentation of the motion, and no opportunity is given to the court to consider and correct such errors, they will as a general rule be regarded as waived.” (Syl. ¶ 1.) The judgment is affirmed.

1945Co., 123 Kan. 554 , 255 Pac. 980 , where it was held: “A person has an insurable interest in his own life.

1945Co., 123 Kan. 554 , 255 Pac. 980 , where it was held: “A person has an insurable interest in his own life.

1917Counsel here, as in the Mollier case, argue that the case at'bar should follow the decision in Nelson v. Schoonover, 89 "Kan. 779, 132 Pac. 1183 , but we think not.' The defendants have seen fit to take this property under the will, not under a contract nor as cestuis que trust. ' The state has the power to tax the right of succession — the right to take by will or by the statute of descents and distributions (The State v. Mollier, supra, p. 519) ; and since the defendants have chosen to take title by the will of Christ Backus it is of no consequence that they might have secured it through som

1917But this situation brings the case squarely within the rule laid down in The State v. Mollier, 96 Kan. 514 , 152 Pac. 771 , decided by this court after the case at bar was disposed of below; and we doubt not that the trial court would have so held if it could have had the light afforded by the Mollier case.

1917But this situation brings the case squarely within the rule laid down in The State v. Mollier, 96 Kan. 514 , 152 Pac. 771 , decided by this court after the case at bar was disposed of below; and we doubt not that the trial court would have so held if it could have had the light afforded by the Mollier case.

1906Chief Justice Butler’s definition of a de facto officer in State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449 , 9 Am.