Elliott v. Retail Hardware Mutual Fire Insurance

233 N.W. 316, 181 Minn. 573, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1036
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedNovember 28, 1930
DocketNo. 28,213.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 233 N.W. 316 (Elliott v. Retail Hardware Mutual Fire Insurance) 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
Elliott v. Retail Hardware Mutual Fire Insurance, 233 N.W. 316, 181 Minn. 573, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1036 (Mich. 1930).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying a new trial. The findings and order for judgment were made July 29, 1926. Plaintiff’s motion for amended findings or new trial was denied by an order of August 27,1927. That year of delay was but a beginning. Notice of the filing of the order was given and service admitted September 7, 1927. The notice, with the proof of service, was not part of the record when the case came here. It has since been produced in response to our request and filed. Notwithstanding the service of notice of the order denying the motion for new trial, September 7, 1927, the notice of appeal therefrom was not served until June 26, 1930.

In order to be effective for any purpose such a notice must be served and filed within 30 days from the notice by the adverse party of the filing of the order appealed from. G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) §§ 9492, 9497. Counsel for defendant has been so accommodating as not to question our jurisdiction, but that does not help *574 plaintiff. The jurisdiction of this court on appeal does not rest upon the consent of counsel or litigants. If it does not exist otherwise, no amount of accommodation on their part can create it. The appeal must be dismissed.

The printed record should show jurisdiction plainly and affirmatively. In this case the notice of appeal was not printed, nor is there in the printed record any reference to its date. There is only the misleading statement that one was “duly served and filed as provided by statute.”

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Reub's Minot Camera, Inc. v. General Electric Credit Corp.
201 N.W.2d 877 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1972)
In RE CONDEMNATION BY OAK CENTER CREAMERY CO. v. Grobe
119 N.W.2d 729 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1963)
State Ex Rel. Farrington v. Rigg
78 N.W.2d 721 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1956)
Ullman v. Lutz
55 N.W.2d 57 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
State v. Sax
42 N.W.2d 680 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
Backstrom v. New York Life Insurance Co.
244 N.W. 64 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 N.W. 316, 181 Minn. 573, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-retail-hardware-mutual-fire-insurance-minn-1930.