Dyal v. City of Topeka

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtVALENTINE, J.:
Citation35 Kan. 62,10 P. 161
Decision Date05 March 1886
PartiesJOHN J. DYAL, et al., v. THE CITY OF TOPEKA

10 P. 161

35 Kan. 62

JOHN J. DYAL, et al.,
v.

THE CITY OF TOPEKA

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 5, 1886


Error from Shawnee District Court.

THE opinion states the nature of the action, and the facts. The plaintiffs Dyal bring the case to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

James J. Hitt, for plaintiffs in error.

Jasper H. Moss, for defendant in error.

VALENTINE, J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.:

This was an action brought in the district court of Shawnee county, by John J. Dyal and Seward E. Dyal, against the city of Topeka, to perpetually enjoin the defendant and its officers, agents and employes from interfering with the plaintiffs in the use and enjoyment of a certain piece of land which the defendant claims is a part of one of the public streets of the city, but which the plaintiffs claim is not a part of any street, but belongs to them as their separate and individual property. The case was tried before the court below without a jury, at a term of the court begun and held on January 7, 1884. After the plaintiffs had introduced their evidence and rested, the defendant demurred to the evidence, which demurrer was sustained by the court, and the court then [35 Kan. 63] found generally in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment accordingly. On February 16, 1884, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial. What the grounds set forth in this motion for a new trial were, or whether any grounds were set forth for a new trial, is not shown by the record. On March 1, 1884, the motion for a new trial was overruled, and the court then extended the time twenty days for making a case for the supreme court. The case was made and served within the time fixed by the court, and it was settled, signed and authenticated on March 27, 1884, and on February 24, 1885, the case was brought to this court for review. Whether the motion for the new trial was filed within three days after the finding and judgment of the court below, is not shown by the record. Nor is it shown upon what grounds the motion for the new [10 P. 162] trial was made. No case was made for the supreme court within three days after the judgment was rendered, (Civil Code, § 548;) nor was the time for making a case extended within three days after the rendering of the judgment. ( AEtna Life Ins. Co. v. Koons, 26 Kan. 215.) The time, however, for making a case was extended within three days after the motion for the new...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • United States v. Choctaw, Okla. & Gulf R.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 7, 1895
    ...the trial. (Odell v. Sargent, 3 Kan. 80; Mitchell v. Milhoan, 11 Kan. 617; Nesbitt v. Hines, 17 Kan. 316; Dyal et al. v. City of Topeka, 35 Kan. 62, 10 P. 161.) ¶28 And it has been by the same court uniformly held that the district judge has no power to extend the time for making a case, af......
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 9, 1908
    ...the motion for new trial is not assigned as error, the judgment is not reviewable. (Crawford v. Kansas City, 45 Kan. 474; Dyal v. Topeka, 35 Kan. 62; Osbourne v. Young, 28 Kan. 769; Shattuck v. Board, 63 Kan. 849; Mech. Savings Bank v. Harding, 65 Kan. 655; Blockwood v. Shaff (Kan.), 24 P. ......
  • Bowen v. Wilson, 19,037
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 14, 1914
    ...motion to dismiss, which can not be considered for the reason that this appeal was not brought within proper time. (Dyal v. City of Topeka, 35 Kan. 62, 10 P. 161.) It is appellant's contention that his right to appeal within a year accrued to him before chapter 241 of the Laws of 1913, limi......
  • Burcham v. Edwards, Case Number: 2535
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 4, 1913
    ...District, 20 Kan. 256; Gruble v. Ryus, 23 Kan. 195; Pratt v. Kelley, 24 Kan. 111; Hover v. Tenney, 27 Kan. 133; Dyal v. City of Topeka, 35 Kan. 62 [10 P. 161]; Mercer v. Ringer, 40 Kan. 189 [19 P. 670]; Deford v. Orvis, 52 Kan. 432 [34 P. 1044]; Brewing Association v. Wolff, 53 Kan. 323 [36......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • United States v. Choctaw, Okla. & Gulf R.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 7, 1895
    ...the trial. (Odell v. Sargent, 3 Kan. 80; Mitchell v. Milhoan, 11 Kan. 617; Nesbitt v. Hines, 17 Kan. 316; Dyal et al. v. City of Topeka, 35 Kan. 62, 10 P. 161.) ¶28 And it has been by the same court uniformly held that the district judge has no power to extend the time for making a case, af......
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 9, 1908
    ...the motion for new trial is not assigned as error, the judgment is not reviewable. (Crawford v. Kansas City, 45 Kan. 474; Dyal v. Topeka, 35 Kan. 62; Osbourne v. Young, 28 Kan. 769; Shattuck v. Board, 63 Kan. 849; Mech. Savings Bank v. Harding, 65 Kan. 655; Blockwood v. Shaff (Kan.), 24 P. ......
  • Bowen v. Wilson, 19,037
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 14, 1914
    ...motion to dismiss, which can not be considered for the reason that this appeal was not brought within proper time. (Dyal v. City of Topeka, 35 Kan. 62, 10 P. 161.) It is appellant's contention that his right to appeal within a year accrued to him before chapter 241 of the Laws of 1913, limi......
  • Burcham v. Edwards, Case Number: 2535
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 4, 1913
    ...District, 20 Kan. 256; Gruble v. Ryus, 23 Kan. 195; Pratt v. Kelley, 24 Kan. 111; Hover v. Tenney, 27 Kan. 133; Dyal v. City of Topeka, 35 Kan. 62 [10 P. 161]; Mercer v. Ringer, 40 Kan. 189 [19 P. 670]; Deford v. Orvis, 52 Kan. 432 [34 P. 1044]; Brewing Association v. Wolff, 53 Kan. 323 [36......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT