( Adrian v. Elmer, 178 Kan. 242, 284 P.2d 599.) In Hartwell v. Manufacturing Co., 78 Kan. 259, 97 P. 432, it is said: "It is trite law that where one, without authority, assumes to act as the agent of another in making a contract, the principal must repudiate the transaction within a reasonable time after all the material facts in regard thereto have come to his knowledge or he will be presumed to have ratified the contract.
In all cases he must repudiate the unauthorized act at least within a reasonable time. ( Hartwell v. Manufacturing Co., 78 Kan. 259, 97 P. 432.) The only remaining questions are whether the jury was justified in awarding a verdict for exemplary damages against the defendants and, if so, whether that verdict was excessive.
"The ruling on a demurrer to the evidence is a decision occurring on a trial; and in order to enable the Supreme Court to review such ruling, it is necessary that a motion for a new trial be filed within the time prescribed by law." This is a well established rule and has been followed in a great number of cases both in this state and Kansas. Ardmore Oil Milling Co. v. Daggett Grain Co., 32 Okla. 280, 122 P. 241; Stump v. Porter, 31 Okla. 157, 120 P. 639; Tyler v. Tyler, 44 Okla. 411, 144 P. 1023; Insurance Co. of North Amer. v. Little, 34 Okla. 449, 125 P. 1098; James v. Jackson, 30 Okla. 190, 120 P. 299; Guble v. Ryns et al., 23 Kan. 195; Pratt v. Kelly, 24 Kan. 111; Norris v. Evans, 39 Kan. 668, 18 P. 818; Lott v. K. C., Ft. S. G. R. Co., 42 Kan. 293, 21 P. 1070; Coy v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 69 Kan. 521, 76 P. 844; Buoy v. Clyde Mill and Ele. Co., 68 Kan. 436, 75 P. 466; Darling v. A., T. S. F. Ry. Co., 76 Kan. 893, 93 P. 612, 94 P. 202; Hartwell v. Mfg. Co., 78 Kan. 259, 97 P. 432; Heinz v. Consumers M. H. P. Co., 81 Kan. 261, 105 P. 527. The motion for a new trial in the case at bar being necessary and the appeal having been filed within 30 days after the ruling upon such motion, this court acquires jurisdiction to review the cause upon errors assigned by plaintiff.