Maichel v. Coleman

Supreme Court of Kansas

Maichel v. Coleman

204 P.2d 731, 167 Kan. 93, 1949 Kan. LEXIS 255

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 9, 1949

DocketNo. 37,543

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 204 P.2d 731 (Maichel v. Coleman) 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

Maichel v. Coleman, 204 P.2d 731, 167 Kan. 93, 1949 Kan. LEXIS 255 (kan 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wedell, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court overruling a motion filed by the administrator of a decedent’s estate, in his official capacity and as an heir, to dismiss an appeal of other heirs from the judgment of the probate court. The appeal was from the judgment of the probate court allowing expenses of administration including attorney’s fees.

An order sustaining a motion to dismiss an action is a final and appealable order. An order overruling a motion to dismiss an action is not a final order and prior to final judgment is not appeal-able. (Pulliam v. Pulliam, 163 Kan. 497, 499, 188 P. 2d 220; Runnels v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 165 Kan. 571, 573, 195 P. 2d 571; Singleton v. State Highway Comm., 166 Kan. 406, 201 P. 2d 650; Kansas State Highway Comm. v. Moore, 166 Kan. 408, 201 P. 2d 652.) Likewise an order of the district court overruling a motion to dismiss an appeal from the probate court is nonappealable. (In re Estate of Grindrod, 158 Kan. 345, 148 P. 2d 278.)

It follows this court has acquired no jurisdiction by virtue of the attempted appeal and the appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wedell, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court overruling a motion filed by the administrator of a decedent’s estate, in his official capacity and as an heir, to dismiss an appeal of other heirs from the judgment of the probate court. The appeal was from the judgment of the probate court allowing expenses of administration including attorney’s fees.

An order sustaining a motion to dismiss an action is a final and appealable order. An order overruling a motion to dismiss an action is not a final order and prior to final judgment is not appeal-able. (Pulliam v. Pulliam, 163 Kan. 497, 499, 188 P. 2d 220; Runnels v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 165 Kan. 571, 573, 195 P. 2d 571; Singleton v. State Highway Comm., 166 Kan. 406, 201 P. 2d 650; Kansas State Highway Comm. v. Moore, 166 Kan. 408, 201 P. 2d 652.) Likewise an order of the district court overruling a motion to dismiss an appeal from the probate court is nonappealable. (In re Estate of Grindrod, 158 Kan. 345, 148 P. 2d 278.)

It follows this court has acquired no jurisdiction by virtue of the attempted appeal and the appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 P.2d 731, 167 Kan. 93, 1949 Kan. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maichel-v-coleman-kan-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack