proceedings error in Kansas

1909Co. v. Chicago Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 , 37 Pac. 132 , it was held that, where ‘it appears that a modification or reversal will affect a defendant, who has not been made a party, the proceedings in error will be dismissed.’ In that case the plaintiff in error claimed that not only was its lien prior to the lien .of the defendant in error, but that the amount allowed the defendant in error against the owner of the land, who was not brought into the reviewing court, was too large, and the ease was dismissed for defect of parties.

1899In Mortgage Co. v. Lowe, 53 Kan. 39 , 35 Pac. 829 , the supreme court said: “ Where a judgment cannot be disturbed or reversed without affecting all of the defendants in the court below, all of such defendants must be made parties in the supreme court upon pro ceedings in error, to have the case disposed of upon its merits.” In Loan Co. v. Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 , 37 Pac. 132 , the court said : “Where a judgment against several defendants is brought up to the supreme court for review, and it appears that a modification or reversal will affect a defendant who has not been made a party, the pro

1900(Pierce v. Downey, 56 Kan. 250 , 43 Pac. 223 .) The motion to dismiss must therefore be sustained, unless the application to substitute the bank for Mrs. Daughters as plaintiff in error can be properly granted.

1899In Mortgage Co. v. Lowe, 53 Kan. 39 , 35 Pac. 829 , the supreme court said: “ Where a judgment cannot be disturbed or reversed without affecting all of the defendants in the court below, all of such defendants must be made parties in the supreme court upon pro ceedings in error, to have the case disposed of upon its merits.” In Loan Co. v. Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 , 37 Pac. 132 , the court said : “Where a judgment against several defendants is brought up to the supreme court for review, and it appears that a modification or reversal will affect a defendant who has not been made a party, the pro

1975Under the circumstances, we cannot say that public hearing would have been desirable, and we have not been referred to any authority holding that they may be required as a matter of right.” (Kentucky State Bar Association v. Taylor, 482 S. W. 2d 574, 577 , (Ky.). *582 For the fifth exception respondent asserts that the proceedings were in violation of Rule 209 (a) (214 Kan. fix): “(a) All proceedings, reports and records of disciplinary investigations and hearings other than proceedings before the Supreme Court shall be private and shall not be divulged in whole or in part to the public except

1971Board of County Commissioners v. Brookover, 198 Kan. 70 , 422 P. 2d 906 , upon which the trial court relied, must stand on its own peculiar facts.

1971Board of County Commissioners v. Brookover, 198 Kan. 70 , 422 P. 2d 906 , upon which the trial court relied, must stand on its own peculiar facts.

1909On the application of the state the order dissolving the temporary injunction was stayed and the cause was brought to this court on proceedings in error, where the judgment of the district court was affirmed. {The State v. Clay Center, 76 Kan. 866 , 91 Pac. 91 .) The bond sued on was given in pursuance of an order of this court for the purpose of keeping in force the temporary injunction pending the decision here.

1904The proceedings in error must be dismissed on the authority of Smith v. Alexander, 67 Kan. 862 , 74 Pac. 240 .

1903Dam., 8th ed., § 138 ; Palmer v. Meiners, 17 Kan. 478 ; Jameson v. Kent, 42 Neb. 412 .) The motion to dismiss the proceedings in error must be denied.

1903Dam., 8th ed., § 138 ; Palmer v. Meiners, 17 Kan. 478 ; Jameson v. Kent, 42 Neb. 412 .) The motion to dismiss the proceedings in error must be denied.

1902The command of this court to carry the same into effect would be nugatory.” (See also Railway Co. v. The State, ex rel., 60 Kan. 858 , 56 Pac. 755 .) The proceedings in error will be dismissed.

1902The proceedings in error were accordingly dismissed because of the futility of any order which, were it to be made, would be of no substantial avail, the court, among other things, saying: “It has been.many times held that if, during the pendency of an appeal, the order of mandamus appealed from is obeyed, or if an order has been applied for and denied, and an appeal perfected therefrom, and during its pendency the order, if made, has become impossible of performance, the appeal will be dismissed.” In Knight v. Hirbour, 64 Kan. 563 , 67 Pac. 1104 , mandamus was issued commanding an undertaker

1902The proceedings in error were accordingly dismissed because of the futility of any order which, were it to be made, would be of no substantial avail, the court, among other things, saying: “It has been.many times held that if, during the pendency of an appeal, the order of mandamus appealed from is obeyed, or if an order has been applied for and denied, and an appeal perfected therefrom, and during its pendency the order, if made, has become impossible of performance, the appeal will be dismissed.” In Knight v. Hirbour, 64 Kan. 563 , 67 Pac. 1104 , mandamus was issued commanding an undertaker

1900(Smith v. Kimball, 36 Kan. 474 , 13 Pac. 801 .) It is immaterial whether you call the proceedings in error an original action or a continuation of the one begun in the common pleas court.

1899In Mortgage Co. v. Lowe, 53 Kan. 39 , 35 Pac. 829 , the supreme court said: “ Where a judgment cannot be disturbed or reversed without affecting all of the defendants in the court below, all of such defendants must be made parties in the supreme court upon pro ceedings in error, to have the case disposed of upon its merits.” In Loan Co. v. Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 , 37 Pac. 132 , the court said : “Where a judgment against several defendants is brought up to the supreme court for review, and it appears that a modification or reversal will affect a defendant who has not been made a party, the pro

1899App. 117 , 42 Pac. 827 ; Lumber Co. v. Haines, 3 id. 316, 45 Pac. 97 ; Bain v. Conn. M.

1899His death, without an order of revivor having been applied for or made in this court, leaves the case in the same condition it would be in had he, in the first place, not been made a party thereto.” In the case of Janis v. Bank, 59 Kan. 771 , 51 Pac. 886 , decided by the supreme court of this state, one paragraph of the syllabus reads: “Where necessary parties in error have died, and no proceedings to revive or substitute are had within the time allowed by law, the petition in error should be dismissed.” See also Bank v. Van Doran, 59 Kan. 776 , 53 Pac. 130 .

1899In Mortgage Co. v. Lowe, 53 Kan. 39 , 35 Pac. 829 , the supreme court said: “ Where a judgment cannot be disturbed or reversed without affecting all of the defendants in the court below, all of such defendants must be made parties in the supreme court upon pro ceedings in error, to have the case disposed of upon its merits.” In Loan Co. v. Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 , 37 Pac. 132 , the court said : “Where a judgment against several defendants is brought up to the supreme court for review, and it appears that a modification or reversal will affect a defendant who has not been made a party, the pro

1899In Mortgage Co. v. Lowe, 53 Kan. 39 , 35 Pac. 829 , the supreme court said: “ Where a judgment cannot be disturbed or reversed without affecting all of the defendants in the court below, all of such defendants must be made parties in the supreme court upon pro ceedings in error, to have the case disposed of upon its merits.” In Loan Co. v. Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 , 37 Pac. 132 , the court said : “Where a judgment against several defendants is brought up to the supreme court for review, and it appears that a modification or reversal will affect a defendant who has not been made a party, the pro

1899His death, without an order of revivor having been applied for or made in this court, leaves the case in the same condition it would be in had he, in the first place, not been made a party thereto.” In the case of Janis v. Bank, 59 Kan. 771 , 51 Pac. 886 , decided by the supreme court of this state, one paragraph of the syllabus reads: “Where necessary parties in error have died, and no proceedings to revive or substitute are had within the time allowed by law, the petition in error should be dismissed.” See also Bank v. Van Doran, 59 Kan. 776 , 53 Pac. 130 .

1899In Mortgage Co. v. Lowe, 53 Kan. 39 , 35 Pac. 829 , the supreme court said: “ Where a judgment cannot be disturbed or reversed without affecting all of the defendants in the court below, all of such defendants must be made parties in the supreme court upon pro ceedings in error, to have the case disposed of upon its merits.” In Loan Co. v. Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 , 37 Pac. 132 , the court said : “Where a judgment against several defendants is brought up to the supreme court for review, and it appears that a modification or reversal will affect a defendant who has not been made a party, the pro

1899App. 117 , 42 Pac. 827 ; Lumber Co. v. Haines, 3 id. 316, 45 Pac. 97 ; Bain v. Conn. M.

1898As to the first question, counsel for defendant in error say it is answered in the affirmative by our supreme court in Kimball et al. v. Connor, 3 Kan. 414 .

1897Commonwealth v. Dascom, 111 Mass. 404; The State v. Little, 1 N. H. 257; The Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2 Va. Cas. 501 ; The State of Iowa v. Green and Mann, 16 Iowa, 239 ; Watkins v. The State, 68 Ind. 427 ; McFarland v. The State, 68 Wis. 400 ; 1 Bishop, Crim.

1897Commonwealth v. Dascom, 111 Mass. 404; The State v. Little, 1 N. H. 257; The Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2 Va. Cas. 501 ; The State of Iowa v. Green and Mann, 16 Iowa, 239 ; Watkins v. The State, 68 Ind. 427 ; McFarland v. The State, 68 Wis. 400 ; 1 Bishop, Crim.

1897Commonwealth v. Dascom, 111 Mass. 404; The State v. Little, 1 N. H. 257; The Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2 Va. Cas. 501 ; The State of Iowa v. Green and Mann, 16 Iowa, 239 ; Watkins v. The State, 68 Ind. 427 ; McFarland v. The State, 68 Wis. 400 ; 1 Bishop, Crim.

1897Commonwealth v. Dascom, 111 Mass. 404; The State v. Little, 1 N. H. 257; The Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2 Va. Cas. 501 ; The State of Iowa v. Green and Mann, 16 Iowa, 239 ; Watkins v. The State, 68 Ind. 427 ; McFarland v. The State, 68 Wis. 400 ; 1 Bishop, Crim.

1897Loan Co. v. Lumber Co., 53 Kan. 677 ; Paving Co. v. Botsford, 50 id. 331; Atlantic Trust Co. v. Prescott, 5 Kan.

1893(Elwood v. National Bank, 41 Kas. 475 .) After the order of discharge was entered, but before it was reversed, Wilson returned the' horse in dispute to a livery stable in Greenleaf, subject to Smith’s order, and the horse remained there until December 8, 1888, at which time Smith, as president, and E.

1893(Willard v. Ostrander, 46 Kas. 591 .) Yet if it was rightfully admitted in evidence, and if the proceedings in error did not stay its force as an estoppel, it affords no ground for a reversal of the judgment in this case.