Edwards v. City of Neodesha

Supreme Court of Kansas

Edwards v. City of Neodesha

204 P. 708, 110 Kan. 492, 1922 Kan. LEXIS 80

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedFebruary 11, 1922

DocketNo. 23,509

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 204 P. 708 (Edwards v. City of Neodesha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. City of Neodesha, 204 P. 708, 110 Kan. 492, 1922 Kan. LEXIS 80 (kan 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

[493]*493The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This action arose over the condemnation of plaintiffs’ land for a dam site and water supply for the city of Neodesha. The condemnation award for the land taken, about three-fourths of an acre, was $75, and the award for damages to the land not -taken was $500. The land belonged to J.- L. Edwards, August A. Edwards and Dorothy E. Edwards. The condemnation proceedings had dealt with the property as if it belonged solely to J. L. Edwards. He appealed from the award. Later August and Dorothy were made parties to the action on their application. The cause was tried before a jury and a verdict was returned in favor of the landowners for $1,942.50.

The city filed a motion for a new trial. It also filed a motion to dismiss the action as to August A. Edwards and Dorothy E. Edwards because they did not appeal from the award in the first instance. The city’s motion to dismiss was overruled; its motion .for a new trial was.granted. "

The city appeals from the order overruling its motion to dismiss. The appellee raises the point that this.is not an appealable order.

The ruling was not a final order as defined in section 566 of the civil code, nor was it an intermediate appealable order under any of the provisions of section 565 of the civil code.

In Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124, it was held:

“The denial of a motion, to dismiss an action made by the defendant, is not one of the orders of the district court from which error lies to the supreme court until the final disposition of the action in the court below.” (Syl.)

To the same effect are: Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kan. 80; Edinfield v. Barnhart, 5 Kan. 225; Simpson v. Kirschbaum, 43 Kan. 36, 22 Pac. 1018.

In Weigand v, Wilson, 107 Kan. 445, 446, 193 Pac. 1065, it was said:

“A final order is one affecting a substantial right in an action, when it in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment. ... Of course, the mere refusal to dismiss . . . does not have either of these effects.”

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[493]*493The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This action arose over the condemnation of plaintiffs’ land for a dam site and water supply for the city of Neodesha. The condemnation award for the land taken, about three-fourths of an acre, was $75, and the award for damages to the land not -taken was $500. The land belonged to J.- L. Edwards, August A. Edwards and Dorothy E. Edwards. The condemnation proceedings had dealt with the property as if it belonged solely to J. L. Edwards. He appealed from the award. Later August and Dorothy were made parties to the action on their application. The cause was tried before a jury and a verdict was returned in favor of the landowners for $1,942.50.

The city filed a motion for a new trial. It also filed a motion to dismiss the action as to August A. Edwards and Dorothy E. Edwards because they did not appeal from the award in the first instance. The city’s motion to dismiss was overruled; its motion .for a new trial was.granted. "

The city appeals from the order overruling its motion to dismiss. The appellee raises the point that this.is not an appealable order.

The ruling was not a final order as defined in section 566 of the civil code, nor was it an intermediate appealable order under any of the provisions of section 565 of the civil code.

In Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124, it was held:

“The denial of a motion, to dismiss an action made by the defendant, is not one of the orders of the district court from which error lies to the supreme court until the final disposition of the action in the court below.” (Syl.)

To the same effect are: Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kan. 80; Edinfield v. Barnhart, 5 Kan. 225; Simpson v. Kirschbaum, 43 Kan. 36, 22 Pac. 1018.

In Weigand v, Wilson, 107 Kan. 445, 446, 193 Pac. 1065, it was said:

“A final order is one affecting a substantial right in an action, when it in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment. ... Of course, the mere refusal to dismiss . . . does not have either of these effects.”

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 P. 708, 110 Kan. 492, 1922 Kan. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-city-of-neodesha-kan-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack