TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Simpson v. Rothschild

Simon Simpson v. Emanuel Rothschild

Simpson v. Rothschild, 43 Kan. 33 (1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1890
Judges
Valentine
Citations
43 Kan. 33
Headnotes
Case, Still Pending— Orders, not Reviewed. The court below overruled a motion made by the defendant to quash the summons and to dismiss the action, and also overruled a motion made by the defendant to discharge the attachment and to dismiss the action, and also permitted the plaintiff to amend his undertaking in the attachment; and before any judgment was rendered in the case, the defendant, as plaintiff in error, brought the case to the supreme court for review. Held, That while the case is still pending undisposed of in the court below, the foregoing orders made by the court below cannot be reviewed by the supreme court.
Summary
Error from Cloud District Court. The opinion, filed at the session of the court in January, 1890, contains a sufficient statement of the case.

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

Opinion of the Court — Valentine

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

*34 The opinion of the court was delivered by Valentine, J.:

It is claimed in this case that the court below erred in overruling a motion made by the defendant below, plaintiff in error, to quash the summons'and to dismiss the action; and also erred in overruling a motion made by the defendant below, plaintiff in error, to discharge the attachment and to dismiss the action; and also erred in permitting .the plaintiffs below, defendants in error, to amend their undertaking in attachment. It does not appear, however, that any judgment has ever been rendered in the case; nor does it appear that any final order has ever been made therein; nor that any other order has ever been made which may be reviewed by this court before the final judgment in the case has been rendered. From anything appearing in the record brought to this court, the case is still pending undisposed of in the court below. It will therefore, under the authority of the following decisions, be dismissed from this court: Miller v. Noyes, 34 Kas. 13 ; Snavely v. Buggy Co., 36 id. 106, 112 , and the numerous cases there cited; Burch v. Adams, 40 id. 639; Boyd v. Cook, 40 id. 675; Steele v. Newton, 41 id. 512; same case, 21 Pac. Rep. 644 ; Callen v. Junction City, 41 Kas. 466 ; same case, 21 Pac. Rep. 647 .

The petition in error and case will be dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.

Per Curiam:

The case of Simpson v. Frankenthall, No. 5112, will be dismissed from the supreme court, upon the authority of the case of Simpson v. Rothschild, just decided.

How later courts describe this case

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

1911: 11914: 21917: 11935: 11947: 119112026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pulliam v. Pulliam183 P.2d 220 (Kan. 1947)
  2. Spaulding v. Polley1911 OK 195, 115 P. 864
  3. Eastern Kansas Oil Co. v. Beutner167 P. 1061 (Kan. 1917)
  4. Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. State ex rel. Read1935 OK 250, 42 P.2d 896
  5. Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Roberts1914 OK 8, 137 P. 1179
  6. Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Winsor1914 OK 49, 138 P. 566

Most recent

  1. Pulliam v. Pulliam183 P.2d 220 (Kan. 1947)
  2. Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. State ex rel. Read1935 OK 250, 42 P.2d 896
  3. Eastern Kansas Oil Co. v. Beutner167 P. 1061 (Kan. 1917)
  4. Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Winsor1914 OK 49, 138 P. 566
  5. Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Roberts1914 OK 8, 137 P. 1179
  6. Spaulding v. Polley1911 OK 195, 115 P. 864

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Miller v. Noyes, 34 Kan. 13 (1885) 6
Callen v. City of Junction City, 41 Kan. 466 (1889) 2

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