correctness instruction in Kansas

1956(Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Public *758 Service Comm., 122 Kan. 462 , 251 Pac. 1097 ; Union Pac.

1956(Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Public *758 Service Comm., 122 Kan. 462 , 251 Pac. 1097 ; Union Pac.

1990The expert medical testimony gave four possible causes for splenic rupture: (1) spontaneous rupture with no apparent explanation; (2) disease; (3) external trauma, which would include the malfunction of the hospital bed; and (4) surgical trauma. 220 Kan. at 59 .

1990The expert medical testimony gave four possible causes for splenic rupture: (1) spontaneous rupture with no apparent explanation; (2) disease; (3) external trauma, which would include the malfunction of the hospital bed; and (4) surgical trauma. 220 Kan. at 59 .

1970Plaintiff cites decisions of this court to the effect that parol evidence is admissible to supply an omission in a written contract such as in Gibbs v. Erbert, 198 Kan. 403 , 424 P. 2d 276 , where it was held: “Where a written contract is incomplete or silent in some essential point incident thereto, parol evidence is admissible to aid in its construction or to show the complete agreement of the parties of which the writing is only a part.” (Syl. f3.) As an abstract principle of law, the correctness of the rule cited by plaintiff must be conceded, but it is inapplicable with respect to the ins

1970Plaintiff cites decisions of this court to the effect that parol evidence is admissible to supply an omission in a written contract such as in Gibbs v. Erbert, 198 Kan. 403 , 424 P. 2d 276 , where it was held: “Where a written contract is incomplete or silent in some essential point incident thereto, parol evidence is admissible to aid in its construction or to show the complete agreement of the parties of which the writing is only a part.” (Syl. f3.) As an abstract principle of law, the correctness of the rule cited by plaintiff must be conceded, but it is inapplicable with respect to the ins

1964Va. 795 , 34 S.E.2d 742 ; In re Shailer's Estate, Okl., 266 P.2d 613 ; Youngman v. Shular, 155 Tex. 437 , 288 S.W.2d 495 , and Barton v. Warner, (Tex. Civ.

1964Va. 795 , 34 S.E.2d 742 ; In re Shailer's Estate, Okl., 266 P.2d 613 ; Youngman v. Shular, 155 Tex. 437 , 288 S.W.2d 495 , and Barton v. Warner, (Tex. Civ.

1964Va. 795 , 34 S. E. 2d 742 ; In re Shailer's Estate, Okl., 266 P. 2d 613 ; Youngman v. Shular, 155 Tex. 437 , 288 S. W. 2d 495 , and Barton v. Warner, (Tex. Civ.

1964Va. 795 , 34 S.E.2d 742 ; In re Shailer's Estate, Okl., 266 P.2d 613 ; Youngman v. Shular, 155 Tex. 437 , 288 S.W.2d 495 , and Barton v. Warner, (Tex. Civ.

1964The correctness of the rule is not questioned . . .” Those who desire to research the general rule above announced as applied in other states may see Mairs v. Trust Co., 127 W.

1964The correctness of the rule is not questioned ..." Those who desire to research the general rule above announced as applied in other states may see Mairs v. Trust Co., 127 W.

1962(State v. Spencer, 186 Kan. 298, 303, 304 , 349 P. 2d 920 ; State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505, 510 , 322 P. 2d 767 ; State v. Hockett, 172 Kan. 1, 4 , 238 P. 2d 539 ; State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 .) In view of what has been said, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1962(State v. Spencer, 186 Kan. 298, 303, 304 , 349 P. 2d 920 ; State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505, 510 , 322 P. 2d 767 ; State v. Hockett, 172 Kan. 1, 4 , 238 P. 2d 539 ; State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 .) In view of what has been said, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1962(State v. Spencer, 186 Kan. 298, 303, 304 , 349 P. 2d 920 ; State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505, 510 , 322 P. 2d 767 ; State v. Hockett, 172 Kan. 1, 4 , 238 P. 2d 539 ; State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 .) In view of what has been said, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1962(State v. Spencer, 186 Kan. 298, 303, 304 , 349 P. 2d 920 ; State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505, 510 , 322 P. 2d 767 ; State v. Hockett, 172 Kan. 1, 4 , 238 P. 2d 539 ; State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 .) In view of what has been said, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1962(State v. Spencer, 186 Kan. 298, 303, 304 , 349 P. 2d 920 ; State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505, 510 , 322 P. 2d 767 ; State v. Hockett, 172 Kan. 1, 4 , 238 P. 2d 539 ; State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 .) In view of what has been said, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1962(State v. Spencer, 186 Kan. 298, 303, 304 , 349 P. 2d 920 ; State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505, 510 , 322 P. 2d 767 ; State v. Hockett, 172 Kan. 1, 4 , 238 P. 2d 539 ; State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 .) In view of what has been said, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1959(Stephenson v. Wallis, 181 Kan. 254 , 311 P. 2d 355 .) Upon the facts and circumstances presented in Schmid v. Eslick, supra, it was held reversible error to give the unavoidable accident instruction.

1959(Stephenson v. Wallis, 181 Kan. 254 , 311 P. 2d 355 .) Upon the facts and circumstances presented in Schmid v. Eslick, supra, it was held reversible error to give the unavoidable accident instruction.

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1953In a number of our more recent cases (State v. Sharpe, 172 Kan. 520 , 241 P. 2d 501 ; State v. Clark, 171 Kan. 734 , 237 P. 2d 255 ; State v. Miller, 154 Kan. 267 , 118 P. 2d 561 ; State v. Mitchell, 143 Kan. 322 , 54 P. 2d 917 ) we have held that under the third subdivision of our statute (62-1703, supra) the state may appeal from an order granting the defendant a new trial and in others (The *307 State v. Allen, 107 Kan. 407 , 191 Pac. 476 , involving the correctness of an instruction and rulings on evidence introduced by the defendant; State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680 , 293 Pac. 756 , involvin

1951They lean heavily upon statements contained in the opinion in Motor Equipment Co., v. McLaughlin, 156 Kan. 258 , 133 P. 2d 149 , and in a portion of the syllabus which reads: “Punitive damages are imposed by way of punishing a defendant for malicious or vindictive acts or for a willful and wanton invasion of plaintiff’s rights, the purpose being to restrain him and deter others from the commission of like wrongs.” (Syl. ¶ 10.) The correctness of the rule is not disputed by the plaintiff.

1951They lean heavily upon statements contained in the opinion in Motor Equipment Co., v. McLaughlin, 156 Kan. 258 , 133 P. 2d 149 , and in a portion of the syllabus which reads: “Punitive damages are imposed by way of punishing a defendant for malicious or vindictive acts or for a willful and wanton invasion of plaintiff’s rights, the purpose being to restrain him and deter others from the commission of like wrongs.” (Syl. ¶ 10.) The correctness of the rule is not disputed by the plaintiff.

1948As bearing ón the correctness of the principle stated in the above quotations see Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304, 311 , 42 L.

1948As bearing ón the correctness of the principle stated in the above quotations see Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304, 311 , 42 L.

1948He does, in connection with his argument, direct attention to the definition of unavoidable accident in State v. Hansford, 76 Kan. 678 , 92 Pac. 551 , that it is: . . an undesigned contingency; a happening without intentional causation; that which exists or occurs abnormally; something unusual or phenomenal; an uncommon occurrence.” (1. c. 685.) In a very technical sense, it may be said that if defendant proved the knot became untied, he disproved accident.

1948He does, in connection with his argument, direct attention to the definition of unavoidable accident in State v. Hansford, 76 Kan. 678 , 92 Pac. 551 , that it is: . . an undesigned contingency; a happening without intentional causation; that which exists or occurs abnormally; something unusual or phenomenal; an uncommon occurrence.” (1. c. 685.) In a very technical sense, it may be said that if defendant proved the knot became untied, he disproved accident.

1940The rule with reference to the sale of property left by the mortgagee at a place of business where such property is kept for sale I don’t think applies in this case.” The trial court and all the parties admit the correctness of the rule that— “Where a mortgagee knows the mortgagor is a dealer, buying to sell in the regular course of business, and consents to a sale by the mortgagor, the purchaser takes free from the mortgagee’s lien.” (Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. Faulkner, 119 Kan. 807 , syl. ¶[ 2.) (See, also, Trapani v. Universal Credit Co., ante, p. 715, 100 P. 2d 735 .) The plaint

1940The rule with reference to the sale of property left by the mortgagee at a place of business where such property is kept for sale I don’t think applies in this case.” The trial court and all the parties admit the correctness of the rule that— “Where a mortgagee knows the mortgagor is a dealer, buying to sell in the regular course of business, and consents to a sale by the mortgagor, the purchaser takes free from the mortgagee’s lien.” (Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. Faulkner, 119 Kan. 807 , syl. ¶[ 2.) (See, also, Trapani v. Universal Credit Co., ante, p. 715, 100 P. 2d 735 .) The plaint

1936(City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485 , 6 Pac. 893 ; McCoy v. City of Wichita, 86 Kan. 943 , 122 Pac. 894 ; Boddington v. Kansas City, 95 Kan. 189 , 148 Pac. 252 ; Ade v. City of Wichita, 141 Kan. 497 , 41 P. 2d 734 .) There is no dispute concerning the correctness of that principle of law.

1936(City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485 , 6 Pac. 893 ; McCoy v. City of Wichita, 86 Kan. 943 , 122 Pac. 894 ; Boddington v. Kansas City, 95 Kan. 189 , 148 Pac. 252 ; Ade v. City of Wichita, 141 Kan. 497 , 41 P. 2d 734 .) There is no dispute concerning the correctness of that principle of law.

1936(City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485 , 6 Pac. 893 ; McCoy v. City of Wichita, 86 Kan. 943 , 122 Pac. 894 ; Boddington v. Kansas City, 95 Kan. 189 , 148 Pac. 252 ; Ade v. City of Wichita, 141 Kan. 497 , 41 P. 2d 734 .) There is no dispute concerning the correctness of that principle of law.

1936(City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485 , 6 Pac. 893 ; McCoy v. City of Wichita, 86 Kan. 943 , 122 Pac. 894 ; Boddington v. Kansas City, 95 Kan. 189 , 148 Pac. 252 ; Ade v. City of Wichita, 141 Kan. 497 , 41 P. 2d 734 .) There is no dispute concerning the correctness of that principle of law.

1936(City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485 , 6 Pac. 893 ; McCoy v. City of Wichita, 86 Kan. 943 , 122 Pac. 894 ; Boddington v. Kansas City, 95 Kan. 189 , 148 Pac. 252 ; Ade v. City of Wichita, 141 Kan. 497 , 41 P. 2d 734 .) There is no dispute concerning the correctness of that principle of law.

1936(City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485 , 6 Pac. 893 ; McCoy v. City of Wichita, 86 Kan. 943 , 122 Pac. 894 ; Boddington v. Kansas City, 95 Kan. 189 , 148 Pac. 252 ; Ade v. City of Wichita, 141 Kan. 497 , 41 P. 2d 734 .) There is no dispute concerning the correctness of that principle of law.

1936(City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485 , 6 Pac. 893 ; McCoy v. City of Wichita, 86 Kan. 943 , 122 Pac. 894 ; Boddington v. Kansas City, 95 Kan. 189 , 148 Pac. 252 ; Ade v. City of Wichita, 141 Kan. 497 , 41 P. 2d 734 .) There is no dispute concerning the correctness of that principle of law.

1935(See Johnson v. Funk, 132 Kan. 793 , 297 Pac. 670 ; also, Kaw Valley State Bank v. Chumos, 138 Kan. 714 , 27 P. 2d 244 .) The trouble with the position of defendant is that he has appealed too soon.

1935(See Johnson v. Funk, 132 Kan. 793 , 297 Pac. 670 ; also, Kaw Valley State Bank v. Chumos, 138 Kan. 714 , 27 P. 2d 244 .) The trouble with the position of defendant is that he has appealed too soon.

1935(See Johnson v. Funk, 132 Kan. 793 , 297 Pac. 670 ; also, Kaw Valley State Bank v. Chumos, 138 Kan. 714 , 27 P. 2d 244 .) The trouble with the position of defendant is that he has appealed too soon.

1935(See Johnson v. Funk, 132 Kan. 793 , 297 Pac. 670 ; also, Kaw Valley State Bank v. Chumos, 138 Kan. 714 , 27 P. 2d 244 .) The trouble with the position of defendant is that he has appealed too soon.