Weigand v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 10 July 1920 |
| Docket Number | 22,485 |
| Citation | 193 P. 1065,107 Kan. 445 |
| Parties | JOHN C. WEIGAND, Appellee, v. CLEMENT L. WILSON, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1920
Appeal from Greeley district court; ALBERT S. FOULKS, judge.
Appeal dismissed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. APPEAL--Issue Raised Not Embraced in Notice of Appeal--Not Reviewable. The notice of appeal did not cover the order overruling the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's petition to vacate the appeal from the probate court, and hence such ruling is not before us for consideration.
2. SAME--Issue Raised Not Appealable. An order denying a motion to dismiss an appeal from probate court is not appealable.
W. C Dickey, of Leoti, E. D. McKeever, of Topeka, and Carr W Taylor, of Hutchinson, for the appellant.
Samuel Jones, Ben S. Jones, both of Lyons, and W. M. Glenn, of Tribune, for the appellee.
This action is one of the outcroppings of the remarkable series of transactions recited in Weigand v. Shepard, 105 Kan. 405, 184 P. 722.
The probate court of Greeley county allowed the claim of Clement L. Wilson against the estate of Charles Weigand for $ 1,000 on July 23, 1915, the same day the administrator was appointed. On September 17, 1917, the administrator made his final settlement which showed that there was left out of the entire estate only $ 298.39. On July 17, 1917, the plaintiff filed his petition in the probate court to vacate the allowance of claims of Clement L. Wilson against the estate. To this petition Wilson demurred, and on August 18, 1917, the probate court sustained the demurrer. On September 8, 1917, the plaintiff served notice of appeal from that ruling, his appeal bond being filed and approved September 10, 1917. Afterwards the plaintiff, through his attorney, received and receipted for the amount found due by the probate court. January 15, 1918, Wilson, in the district court, moved to dismiss the appeal, and on January 21, 1919, this motion was overruled, and at the same time a demurrer to the petition to vacate the judgment of allowance was overruled. The notice of appeal recites only the judgment rendered on January 21, 1919, "overruling the motion of said defendant or appellant to dismiss the appeal from the probate court, filed by you in the said action." Hence, the ruling on the demurrer is not before us for consideration.
Counsel for the plaintiff contend that the order overruling the motion to dismiss the appeal is not appealable. The statute provides for an appeal from a final order. (Civ. Code, § 565, Gen. Stat. 1915, § 7469.) A final order is one affecting a substantial right in an action, when it in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment. (Civ....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toklan Royalty Corp. v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
...included in the notice of appeal and on that account there is sound authority for holding it is not subject to review. See Weigand v. Wilson, 107 Kan. 445, 193 P. 1065; Hardman Lumber Co. v. Spitznaugle, 130 Kan. 346, 286 P. 235; Dolan Mercantile Co. v. Wholesale Grocery Subscribers, 131 Ka......
-
McInerney & Conway Finance Corporation v. Smith
... ... 194] 89 N.E. 97; Edgar v. Keller, 43 Neb. 263, ... 61 N.W. 587; Edenfield vs. Barnhart, 5 Kan. 225; ... Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124; Weigand v ... Wilson, 107 Kan. 445, 193 P. 1065; In re ... Cockran's Estate, 48 Okla. 672, 149 P. 1089. See ... discussion in Whitney v. Ritz, 24 N.D ... ...
-
Johnson's Estate v. Zabel's Claim
...of a motion to dismiss an appeal is not a final order and that an appeal to this court from such an order does not lie. Weigand v. Wilson, 107 Kan. 445, 193 P. 1065; Clothier v. Wallace, 135 Kan. 347, 10 P.2d Marsol Credit Co. v. Blackfer, 144 Kan. 632, 62 P.2d 914; Heiman v. State Highway ......
- Laswell v. Seaton