Underwood v. Viles

Citations

• 108 Kan. 276
• 194 P. 1111
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 30

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Appeal — Direction to Modify Judgment — Judgment as Modified Affirmed — Set-off Denied and Mandate Followed — Res Judicata — No Error. On the occasion of a former appeal (106 Kan. 287), this court directed a modification of the judgment of the district court. Two mathematical computations were to be made, and were to be .followed by a clerical correction of the journal. This court treated those acts as already done, and affirmed the judgment as corrected. On return of the cause to the district court, the plaintiff asked, for the first time, that a set-off be made in such a way as to effect computation of interest in making the modification directed. The district court followed the mandate of this court. Held, the subject was res judicata, and obedience to the mandate did not constitute an abuse of discretion, or judicial error in any other respect.</p> <p>2. Query — Where Cross-demands Exist — At What Time Shall the Two Demands Be Deemed Compensated. Query: Under section 102 of the civil code, providing that privilege of set-off shall not be defeated under certain circumstances, and providing that “the two demands must be deemed compensated so far as they equal each other,” at what time , shall the two demands be deemed compensated — at the time the júnior demand matured, at commencement of suit in which set-off is pleaded, at date of verdict or finding by the court, or at some other time?</p>