Pittman & Harrison Co. v. Hayes

Citations

• 98 Kan. 273
• 157 P. 1193
• 1916 Kan. LEXIS 67

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Pleadings — Amendments—Judicial Discretion. Rule followed that the allowance of belated amendments to pleadings is within the sound discretion of the trial court.</p> <p>2. Trial — Immaterial Instructions. A case will not be reversed on exceptions to instructions which do not relate to the issue upon which the cause was determined.</p> <p>3. Sale — Corn—Breach of Contract — Compromise and Settlement. In an action for damages for breach of contract, a compromise and settlement was pleaded and proved and the jury so found. In such case, the accuracy of instructions touching other defenses also pleaded need not be considered on appeal.</p> <p>4. New Trial — Corruption of Prevailing Party — Question of Fact. Whether the corruption of the prevailing party (Civ. Code, § 305, sub-div. 6) by giving perjured testimony in an unrelated and superfluous defense can be said to have been instrumental in procuring a verdict on the principal and successful defense, is a question of fact and not of law, and the district court’s determination thereon is ordinarily conclusive.</p> <p>5. Same. In support of a motion for a new trial under subdivision 6 of section 305 of the civil code, which relates to corruption of the prevailing party, the defeated party introduced evidence tending strongly to show that the witnesses whose testimony established the first and successful defense to an action for damages committed perjury in their evidence to prove a second and Unrelated defense; held, that while the district court with much propriety might have granted a new trial on such showing, it can not be ordered by the supreme court.</p>