Skip to main content
· 10/11/1924

Webb v. Boulanger

Citations

  • 116 Kan. 711
  • 229 P. 754
  • 1924 Kan. LEXIS 165

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Conspiracy — To Injure Reputation and Character of Another — Unlawful Arrest and Imprisonment. When several parties conspired together to place a woman in a compromising position with a man afterwards to be selected, and afterwards, in furtherance of the conspiracy, lured the woman to the room of the plaintiff and took or caused to be taken into the room intoxicating liquor without the consent of the plaintiff so as to make it appear that plaintiff was engaged in unlawful conduct, and then called the police and caused the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff to his defamation and injury, the defendants are liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff although he had not been selected when the plan was originally conceived, but was subsequently included in the plan and in the accomplishment of their wrongful purpose.</p> <p>2. Same — Admissions of Coconspirator Competent Evidence. Admissions of one of the defendants tending to show the conspiracy and accomplishment of the wrongful purpose of the defendants are admissible in evidence, although a prima facie case to fully establish the conspiracy had not yet been made.</p> <p>3. Same — Order of Proof Within Judicial Discretion. In such a case the order of proof is largely within the discretion of the trial court, and the admission of the evidence at the time it was received cannot be regarded as prejudicial error where the accomplishment of the wrongful purpose of defendants was in the end well established.</p> <p>4. Same — -No Material Error in Instructions. Instructions given to the jury relating to the conspiracy examined and held to be without material error.</p> <p>5. Same — Refusal to Submit Requested Interrogatories. There is no error in the refusal to submit a special interrogatory where it embraces several distinct questions and calls for a recitation of considerable of the evidence.</p> <p>6. 'Same. A reasonable rule requiring timely presentation of special question

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • interpreting MCL 712A.19c(2) (guardianship after termination) and holding that “the statute simply requires the court to base its decision whether to appoint a guardian on ‘the child’s best interest.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Johnston

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.