Legal Opinion
Dikeman v. Jewel Gold Mining Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 17, 1924No. 4271PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
By the assignments plaintiffs in error ask a review of the order of tire court refusing to confirm the second sale and ordering it set aside. But a question of our jurisdiction at once arises, because, if that order was not a final one, we cannot take jurisdiction, and the only disposition to be made of the matter is to grant the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the writ for lack of jurisdiction.
The Code of Civil Procedure of Alaska (sections 1336, 1337, Comp.Laws of Alaska) provides that appeals and writs of error may be taken and prosecuted from…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Blossom v. The Milwaukee, &C., Railroad CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Stroup v. RaymondSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Butterfield v. UsherSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Shipley v. ShamwellCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1914
- C. Aultman & Co. v. HumphreyCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1898
3Cited by4 opinions
- Levin v. BaumCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- Dikeman v. Jewel Gold Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
- Creel v. CreelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1945
- Beatrice Levin, Plaintiff-Cross v. Frank Baum, A/K/A Frank M. Baum, -Appellee United States of America, Intervenor-Cross v. Nathan Grossgold, Intervenor-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975