Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 Kan. 36

Simpson v. Kirschbaum & Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1890

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1890-01-15

<p>Review, Not before Final Judgment. Neither a motion to dismiss an action, nor a motion to dismiss an attachment, is reviewable until a final judgment has been rendered.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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 this court until the final disposition of the action.” (See, also, Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Marsol Credit Co. v. Blacker

““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.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Edwards v. City of Neodesha

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1936

4 state decisions

2018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

¶2The petition in error filed in this court contains the following allegations:

“1. The court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant below to quash the summons and dismiss the action.
“2. The court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant below to discharge the attachment and to dismiss the action.”

¶3These alleged errors cannot be considered. The record does not purport to contain the trial of the case, or any judgment, and we Cannot assume that a final judgment has- been rendered.

¶4In Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kas. 80, it was decided that—

“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 this court until the final disposition of the action.”

¶5In Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kas. 124, it was also decided that—

“ 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.”

¶6It was held in Snavely v. Buggy Co., 36 Kas. 106, that—

“An order of the district court overruling a motion to dis*37charge an attachment is not reviewable in the supreme court until a final judgment has been rendeied in the case.”

¶7This disposes of the case, and it must be dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.
/43/kan/36 · .json · Public domain