TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ah Kle v. McLean

Ah Kle v. McLean, 26 P. 937 (Idaho 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 19, 1891
Judges
Huston, Morgan, Sullivan
Citations
26 P. 9373 Idaho 701891 Ida. LEXIS 17
Syllabus
Appeal from Order for Judgment — Dismissal of. — An appeal will not lie from an order for a judgment.
Summary
APPEAL from District Court, Idaho County. The dismissal of an action is a final judgment. (12 Am. & Eng. Eney. of Law, .65, note, and authorities there cited; Bowling v. Polach, 18 Cal. 628; Leese v. Sherwood, 21 Cal. 163; Black on Judgments, see. 27.) A dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit upon the merits is as conclusive upon the rights of the parties as any other judgment that might have been rendered in the ease. (Parrish v. Ferris, 2 Black, 606; Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107; Case v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688.) An order sustaining a demurrer and dismissing an action is not an appealable order. (Idaho Rev. Stats., sec. 4807; Moulton v. Ellmaker, 30 Cal. 529; Sutter v. San Francisco, 36 Cal. 114; Daniels 'v. Lansdale, 38 Cal. 567; Hebira v. Smith3 39 Cal. 145; Agard v. Valencile, 39 Cal. 297; Ashley v. Olmstead, 54 Cal. 618; Moraga v. Emeric, 4 Cal. 308; Mordecai v. Lindsay, 19 How. 199.) An appeal cannot be taken from parts of two judgments and an order for judgment by one notice of appeal, and one undertaking. (People v. Custer, 61 Cal. 191.) As appears from the transcript in this ease there has been no entry of a final judgment in the action, therefore an appeal will not lie. (Idaho Rev. Stats., sec. 4807; 1 Black on Judgments, 106; McLaughlin v. Doherty, 54 Cal. 519; Gray v. Palmer, 28 Cal. 421; Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, 183; People v. Center, 66 Cal. 553, 5 Pac. 263, 6 Pac. 481.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Morgan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MORGAN, J.

The transcript in this case fails to show that any judgment was ever entered, but merely an order for a judgment. Therefore the opinion in the case of Durant v. Comegys, ante, p. 67, 35 Am. St. Rep. 267 , 26 Pac. 755 (decided at this term), applies to, and will govern, this case. Appeal dismissed without prejudice to another appeal; costs of appeal awarded to respondents.

Sullivan, C. J., and Huston, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1891: 11899: 11909: 11911: 11912: 11915: 11916: 11923: 12008: 118912026peak 1891 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Boyd v. Steele59 P. 21 (Idaho 1899)
  2. Bissing v. Bissing115 P. 827 (Idaho 1911)
  3. Santti v. Hartman161 P. 249 (Idaho 1916)
  4. CarlLee v. State143 S.W. 909 (Ark. 1912)
  5. Morgan v. National Bank of Commerce of Shawnee1923 OK 240, 217 P. 388
  6. York v. State115 S.W. 948 (Ark. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Brock v. Eubanks288 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008)
  2. Morgan v. National Bank of Commerce of Shawnee1923 OK 240, 217 P. 388
  3. Santti v. Hartman161 P. 249 (Idaho 1916)
  4. Nichols v. Quinn147 P. 1103 (Kan. 1915)
  5. CarlLee v. State143 S.W. 909 (Ark. 1912)
  6. Bissing v. Bissing115 P. 827 (Idaho 1911)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Durant v. Comegys, 26 P. 755 (Idaho 1891) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list