Oswald v. St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.
Earl Oswald v. The St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Company
Syllabus
Summary
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.
*282 The opinion of the court was delivered by West, J.:
The plaintiff appealed from the award of commissioners appointed by the district court to condemn a certain ground for depot purposes, and recovered exactly the same amount awarded him by the commissioners. ■ The railroad company moved to retax the costs amounting to $125, and from an order overruling this motion, it appeals.
While the motion should have been granted, an appeal cannot be had on a mere matter of costs. (Civ. Code, § 566, Gen. Stat. 1915, §7470; Richmond v. Brummie, 52 Kan. 247 ; 34 Pac. 783 ; Hazelwood v. Mendenhall, 97 Kan. 635 , 156 Pac. 696 ; Shannon v. Abrams, 98 Kan. 26 , 157 Pac. 449 .)
It is also our duty to decline the assumption of jurisdiction, although the point is not raised by the parties. (Skoin v. Limerick, 50 Kan. 645 , 31 Pac. 1051 .)
The appeal is dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.