Davis v. Royce

219 N.W. 928, 174 Minn. 611, 1928 Minn. LEXIS 1215
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided June 15, 1928·No. No. 26,757.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Davis v. Royce, 219 N.W. 928, 174 Minn. 611, 1928 Minn. LEXIS 1215 (Mich. 1928).

219 N.W. 928 (Davis v. Royce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co.
42 N.W.2d 701 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
In Re Estate of Stevens
19 N.W.2d 744 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1945)
Marty v. Nordby
276 N.W. 739 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)
Thompson v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
226 N.W. 700 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)