Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 Kan. 878

Farmer v. Warner

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 5, 1902

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1902-04-05

<p>Error from Harper district court; P. B. Gillett, judge.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We do not agree with this contention. Statutory provisions requiring security for costs are for the protection of the officers of the court and witnesses. While compliance with the mandatory provisions of such statutes will be enforced, if called to the attention of the court by «motion or otherwise, the failure to enforce such provisions by the court does not deprive it of jurisdiction or rended its judgments a nullity.” (p„ 879.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Obertino v. Fidelity Coal Mining Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1902-04-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2015

4 state decisions

20190219101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1Warner, a non-resident of the state, brought his action against Farmer in justice court upon a promissory note. The original note was filed with the justice as plaintiff’s bill of particulars. Plaintiff gave no cost bond and made no deposit in lieu thereof. Summons was issued and served, default made, judgment entered. This suit was brought by Farmer against the judgment creditor, Warner, his attorney, the justice, constable, and a garnishee, to enjoin enforcement of the judgment, and is based upon the sole ground that the justice was without jurisdiction 'to render the judgment because he required no security for costs, or deposit in lieu thereof, to be made before issuance of summons. A demurrer to the petition was sustained. Plaintiff below brings error.

¶2The'contention made by counsel for plaintiff in'error is, that the statutory requirement as to the security for costs is mandatory and jurisdictional, and, not having *879been complied with, the justice was without jurisdiction, and the judgment a nullity.

¶3We do not agree with this contention. Statutory provisions requiring security for costs are for the protection of the officers of the court and witnesses. While compliance with the mandatory provisions of such statutes will be.enforced, if called to the attention of the court by motion or otherwise, the failure to enforce such provisions by the court does not deprive it of jurisdiction or render its judgments a nullity.

¶4The judgment is affirmed.

/64/kan/878 · .json · Public domain