County of Renville v. City of Minneapolis

128 N.W. 669, 112 Minn. 487, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 916
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided December 9, 1910·No. Nos. 16,729—(91)·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order directing judgment upon the pleadings in defendant’s favor. The order is not appealable, and this court is therefore without jurisdiction. We could not enter upon a consideration of the merits of this case without overruling a well-established rule, as shown by a long line of decisions of this court. Lamb v. McCanna, 14 Minn. 385 (513) ; Rogers v. Holyoke, 14 Minn. 387 (514); Hodgins v. Heaney, 15 Minn. 142 (185); Lockwood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 73, 48 N. W. 458. In U. S. S. L. & B. Co. v. Ahrens, 50 Minn. 332, 52 N. W. 898, it was said: “The point is not made by counsel for respondent, but, following the uniform practice of this court under like circumstances, the appeal is hereby dismissed.” See also Gottstein v. St. Jean, 79 Minn. 232, 82 N. W. 311.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

County of Renville v. City of Minneapolis, 128 N.W. 669, 112 Minn. 487, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 916 (Mich. 1910).

128 N.W. 669 (County of Renville v. City of Minneapolis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shema v. Thorpe Bros.
57 N.W.2d 157 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1953)
Lowe v. Nixon
212 N.W. 896 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1927)
Arnoldy v. Northwestern State Bank
172 N.W. 699 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
Supornick v. National Council of Knights & Ladies of Security
170 N.W. 507 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1918)
Holliston v. Ernston
139 N.W. 805 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1913)