Board of County Commissioners v. Young

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Board of County Commissioners v. Young

21 Minn. 335, 1875 Minn. LEXIS 111

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 26, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 Minn. 335 (Board of County Commissioners v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of County Commissioners v. Young, 21 Minn. 335, 1875 Minn. LEXIS 111 (Mich. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This action was commenced in the district court for Sibley county, by the filing of a complaint, and the service of a summons, unaccompanied with a copy of the complaint. The notice contained in the summons was that prescribed in the case of ‘‘an action arising on contract for the payment of money only,” by the provisions of the first subdivision of § 45, ch. 66, Gen. Stat. ; whereas the character of the action, as is claimed, required a notice in conformity with the second subdivision of that section. A motion was made in the district court, by the defendant, to' set aside the complaint, on the ground that it did not, in this respect, conform to the summons. The motion Avas denied, and from the order denying it, defendant appealed to this court. Such an order is not an appealable one. It neither involves the merits of the action, nor any part thereof, nor does it in effect determine the action, and prevent a judgment from Avhich an appeal can be taken. See McCann v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 176.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

This action was commenced in the district court for Sibley county, by the filing of a complaint, and the service of a summons, unaccompanied with a copy of the complaint. The notice contained in the summons was that prescribed in the case of ‘‘an action arising on contract for the payment of money only,” by the provisions of the first subdivision of § 45, ch. 66, Gen. Stat. ; whereas the character of the action, as is claimed, required a notice in conformity with the second subdivision of that section. A motion was made in the district court, by the defendant, to' set aside the complaint, on the ground that it did not, in this respect, conform to the summons. The motion Avas denied, and from the order denying it, defendant appealed to this court. Such an order is not an appealable one. It neither involves the merits of the action, nor any part thereof, nor does it in effect determine the action, and prevent a judgment from Avhich an appeal can be taken. See McCann v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 176.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Minn. 335, 1875 Minn. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-county-commissioners-v-young-minn-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack