the sale of the surveyed coal lands in Alaska and elsewhere. The judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed. MISSOURI & KANSAS INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF OLATHE, KANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 726. Motion to dismiss. Submitted November 13, 1911.- Decided December 4, 1911. Unless it appears from the record that the judgment sought to be reviewed finally determines the cause this court is without jurisdiction. Where the judgment sought to be reviewed affirms the judgment below but merely sustains the demurrer without dismissing the suit, so that the cause is left standing in the lower court for further proceedings, it is not a final judgment reviewable by this court. THE facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Frank Doster, Mr. A. F. Hunt, Jr., Mr. A. M. Harvey and Mr. J. E. Addington, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Stephen H. Allen for defendant in error. Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By MR. JUSTICE HUGHES. Motion to dismiss. This suit was brought by the Railway Company, plaintiff in error, against the City of Olathe, Kansas, in the district court of Johnson County, in that State, to recover damages caused by the repeal of an ordinance authorizing the use of certain streets of the city for an interurban railway and by the consequent prevention, until the passage of a new ordinance, of its construction and operation. The defendant demurred to the petition upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The District Court sustained the demurrer, and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. And this writ of error is brought. The record fails to disclose a final judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, but this merely sustained the demurrer without dismissing the suit. The Supreme Court did not direct its dismissal, but the cause was left standing in the court below for such proceedings as might be had according to law after the decision on the demurrer, either by amendment of the petition or entry of final judgment. As it does not appear from the record that the judgment sought to be reviewed was one which finally determined the cause, this court is without jurisdiction. Miners' Bank of Dubuque v. United States, 5 How. 213; McComb, Executor, v. Commissioners of Knox County, 91 U. S. 1; Great Western Telegraph Company v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339; Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield, 183 U. S. 130. Dismissed. MISSOURI & KANSAS INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF OLATHE, KANSAS. (No. 2.) ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 727. Motion to dismiss. Submitted November 13, 1911.- Decided When the state court gives no effect to the subsequent law, but decides, on grounds independent of that law, that the right claimed was not conferred by the contract claimed to have been impaired, the case stands as though the subsequent law had not been passed and this court has no jurisdiction. New Orleans Water Works v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 38. Where a franchisee refuses to pay the agreed compensation on the ground that a subsequent ordinance deprived it of a part of the franchise granted, but the state court decides that it has had substantially everything and that compensation is due without regard to the part affected, no effect is given to the subsequent ordinance, no question of impairing the obligation of the contract is involved, and there being no Federal question this court has no jurisdiction under §§ 709, Rev. Stat. THE facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Frank Doster, Mr. A. F. Hunt, Jr., Mr. A. M. Harvey and Mr. J. E. Addington, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Stephen H. Allen for defendant in error. Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By MR. JUSTICE HUGHES. Motion to dismiss. The city of Olathe, Kansas, granted to the Railway Company, plaintiff in error, the privilege of using certain streets for its railway, and the Railway Company agreed to pay therefor the sum of $9,000 when the road was completed. This suit was brought in October, 1908, to recover this amount and the Railway Company defended upon the ground that the road had not been completed and hence that the money was not due. It appeared that the company had built and was operating its railway over the entire route save only a certain "turn. out," the construction of which the city prevented. On the trial, evidence was received, over objection, of a resolution adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on March 21, 1910, pending the suit, which purported to set aside their approval of the plans and specification so far as the "turn out" was concerned. But the decision of the court, which went for the city, was not in any sense based on that. The trial court found the facts to be as follows: "The map or ground plan of the said proposed railway contained a red line indicating the main line of the said railway, over the streets of said city, and in addition to said main railway the Y on Santa Fe Street was indicated on said map. The said map also contained a red line, which indicated a contemplated turn out on East Park Street near the State Institution. The specifications filed with the City Clerk by the defendant company specifies in detail the work therein named, but does not mention the 'turn out' above mentioned. The Mayor and members of the City Council at the time did not know that the red line above mentioned indicated the turn out claimed by the defendant. "On August 28th, 1907, the city brought an injunction suit restraining the defendant company from laying the said switch or turn out above mentioned, which suit is still pending. "The said Railway Company laid its main tracks, together with the Y on Santa Fe Street, and commenced operating cars over the entire distance from some time in the month of August, 1907, and has continued to use said track down to the present time, excepting the period of a few months when the operation of said railway was interrupted by changing from a motor car service to an electric service. "The turn out above mentioned is not a necessary part of the construction of said road in order to reasonably operate the same throughout said city, and to the terminus, as provided in said ordinance. "The road as contemplated by said franchise was substantially completed within the meaning of said franchise in the month of August, 1907." Judgment, entered accordingly, was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, and the grounds of its decision are thus stated in its opinion: "In brief, the question involved is whether the work to be done by the company under the franchise can be regarded as having been completed, in such sense as to make the payment of the $9,000 due, in view of the fact that the city has prevented the construction of the turn out. The company maintains that upon the acceptance of its specifications it acquired a contract right to build the turn out, which cannot be affected by any subsequent action of the city. The city contends that it cannot by contract divest itself of the power to control the use of the streets for the benefit of the public, and that the turn out, if constructed at the point designated, would unreasonably interfere with the use of the street as a highway. These matters need not be determined in this case. They are proper subjects for consideration in the injunction suit. In whatever way they may be determined we think the judgment here appealed from must be affirmed upon the ground that the work of the company authorized by the franchise has long since been substantially completed. The location of the turn out is a mere detail. The right of the company to construct it at the place selected can be determined in the |