Jones v. Williamsburg City Fire Insurance

Citations

• 83 Kan. 682
• 112 P. 826
• 1911 Kan. LEXIS 217

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Change of Venue — Disqualification of Judge — Waiver of Erroneous Denial of Application. When an application for a change of venue on the ground of the disqualification of the district judge has been formally presented and fully considered, and has been erroneously denied, the applicant does not waive the error by neglecting to interpose an objection to going to trial'when the case is reached at the next succeeding term of court.</p> <p>2. - Same. A stipulation that a cause shall be submitted to the court and the same jury that tried a companion case, upon the same evidence and instructions, verdict to be returned and judgment rendered the same as if all the steps of a trial had been taken, does not waive the error of the court previously committed in denying an application to change the venue because of the disqualification of the district judge.</p> <p>3. Practice, Supreme Court — Immaterial Error ■ — Denial of Change of Venue by Disqualified Judge. If upon appeal to this court the record of the proceedings shows with reasonable clearness that the judgment rendered expresses the only result which could be rightfully reached, the defeated party has not been prejudiced in his substantial rights because his motion to change the venue was denied and he was obliged to go to trial before a disqualified judge.</p> <p>4. - Presumed Prejudice — Denial of Change of Venue by Disqualified Judge. Generally, prejudice will be presumed from the erroneous denial of an application to change the venue because of the disqualification of the district judge; but the presumption is subject to the limitation that it must appear from the record that there is a substantial controversy to be determined, the result of which may be detrimentally affected by the officiating of the objectionable judge.</p> <p>5. -Immaterial Error — Denial of Change of Venue. Under the facts stated in the opinion it is held that the error of the trial court in refusing to cha