Davis v. Royce
This text of 219 N.W. 928 (Davis v. Royce) 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.
Opinion
The appeal is by plaintiff from an order refusing to vacate an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of misconduct of the prevailing party. The order granting a new trial did not state that it was based exclusively upon errors of law. It purported to be made in the interest of justice, and hence would come in the class of discretionary orders. Such an order is not appealable. Heide v. Lyons, 128 Minn. 488, 151 N. W. 139; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 300. It is well settled that an order refusing to vacate a nonappealable order is not appealable. Brown v. Minnesota T. Mfg. Co. 44 Minn. 322, 46 N. W. 560; Lockwood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 73, 48 N. W. 458; Security State Bank v. Brecht, 150 Minn. 502, 185 N. W. 1021; United States R. & P. Co. Inc. v. Melin, 160 Minn. 530, 200 N. W. 807.
The appeal must be dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
219 N.W. 928, 174 Minn. 611, 1928 Minn. LEXIS 1215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-royce-minn-1928.