TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Round v. Land & Power Co.

J. D. Round v. The Land & Power Company

Round v. Land & Power Co., 142 P. 292 (Kan. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 7, 1914
Docket
No. 18,943
Citations
142 P. 29292 Kan. 8941914 Kan. LEXIS 338
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.' Judgment Satisfied — No Appeal. An appeal from a judgment which has been paid and discharged by appellant is not permissible.
Summary
Appeal from Cowley district court; Carroll L. Swarts, judge.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam:

Action to recover land alleged to have been sold and paid for but not conveyed, or the sum of $333.33, the alleged value of the land not conveyed. On the trial the court sustained a demurrer to plain *895 tiff’s evidence and gave judgment against plaintiff awarding costs in favor of defendant. A motion for a new trial was filed by the plaintiff, but before action thereon was taken he withdrew the motion and at the same time satisfied the judgment by the payment of the costs adjudged against him. He appeals, but the performance of the judgment by the payment of the costs in effect ends the litigation as an appeal does not lie from a judgment which has-been performed. It does not appear that an execution had been issued or that the payment made by the plaintiff was involuntary. Within the rule of Waters v. Garvin, 67 Kan. 855 , 78 Pac. 902 , the plaintiff is not entitled to prosecute an appeal. (The State v. Conkling, 54 Kan. 108 , 37 Pac. 992 , 45 Am. St. Rep. 270 ; York v. Barnes, 58 Kan. 478 , 49 Pac. 596 ).

Notwithstanding the objections to consideration of the appeal we have looked into the abstract and are satisfied that the court would have been compelled to affirm the judgment if it had been open to review.

The appeal will be dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1923: 11935: 21939: 11944: 11947: 219232026peak 1935 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Paul v. Western Distributing Co.52 P.2d 379 (Kan. 1935)
  2. Farmers State Bank v. Bracey212 P. 675 (Kan. 1923)
  3. Muckey v. Baehr145 P.2d 164 (Kan. 1944)
  4. Sisk v. Edmonston182 P.2d 891 (Kan. 1947)
  5. Newsome v. Anderson187 P.2d 495 (Kan. 1947)
  6. Cardin v. Apple92 P.2d 32 (Kan. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Newsome v. Anderson187 P.2d 495 (Kan. 1947)
  2. Sisk v. Edmonston182 P.2d 891 (Kan. 1947)
  3. Muckey v. Baehr145 P.2d 164 (Kan. 1944)
  4. Cardin v. Apple92 P.2d 32 (Kan. 1939)
  5. Paul v. Western Distributing Co.52 P.2d 379 (Kan. 1935)
  6. Howell v. Howell46 P.2d 866 (Kan. 1935)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
York v. Barnes, 49 P. 596 (Kan. 1897) 7
State v. Conkling, 54 Kan. 108 (1894) 23
Waters v. Garvin, 73 P. 902 (Kan. 1903) 18

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