Hughes v. Vossler

Citations

• 110 Kan. 279
• 203 P. 1107
• 1922 Kan. LEXIS 31

Syllabus

<p>syllabus by the court.</p> <p>1. Abstract op Record — Transcript of Evidence. A printed transcript of all the evidence for plaintiff and defendant is not an abstract conforming to the code of civil procedure pertaining to appeals, nor as explained and interpreted in Railway v. Conlon, 77 Kan. 324, 94 Pac. 148; Hills v. Allison, 79 Kan. 617, 100 Pac. 651.</p> <p>2. New Trial — No Statutory Grounds Therefor Stated by Court. Rule followed that where a new tidal is granted on a motion setting up all the statutory grounds therefor, and the trial court does not indicate the specific ground upon which such new trial is granted, the granting of such new trial cannot furnish a basis for reversible error.</p> <p>3. Same — Preponderance of Evidence — How Determined. The matter of preponderance of evidence is not necessarily dependent upon the greater number of witnesses, since the testimony of the smaller number may be truthful and credible, and the testimony of the greater number may, be discredited or untruthful.</p> <p>4. Same — Trial Court Should Specify Grounds for Granting New trial. When the trial court grants a new trial on a motion therefor based on several grounds, it is good practice, and tends to expedite the business of both trial and appellate courts, for the trial court to specify the particular grounds on which the new trial is granted.</p> <p>5. Same — Request that Trial Court Indicate Grounds for Granting New Trial Made Too Late. Where the trial court makes an order granting a new trial pursuant to a motion therefor based on all the statutory grounds but does not indicate the particular grounds upon which the motion for a new trial was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals therefrom, and thereafter the plaintiff appellant returns to the trial court and presents a motion that the trial court indicate the particular grounds upon which the new trial was granted, and the trial court refuses such belated request, it is held, that such request was not in fact a m