Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. v. Union Pac. R. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United .States for the District of Kansas.
1Per curiam
A decree was entered by the trial court which materially affected substantial rights claimed by appellants. It contained recitals that the parties had consented thereto. The appellants, contending they gave no consent, petitioned the court to correct the decree in that particular. From an order denying the petition this appeal was taken. The appellees now move the court, to dismiss the appeal because (1) the order is not an appealable one; and (2) the transcript filed here is not sufficient and is not properly authenticated. In sup • port of the motion, the appellees say the petition was one…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Thompson v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Ensminger v. PowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Nashua & Lowell R. v. Boston & Lowell R.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Hoffman v. KnoxCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1892
- Terry v. Commercial Bank of AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Phœnix v. Arizona Mut. Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1915
- Jackson v. SmietankaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1921
- Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948