Finnegan v. Meyer & Sons, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Finnegan v. Meyer & Sons, Inc.

41 N.W.2d 818, 230 Minn. 583, 1950 Minn. LEXIS 654

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 17, 1950

Docket35,132

StatusPublished

This text of 41 N.W.2d 818 (Finnegan v. Meyer & Sons, Inc.) 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

Finnegan v. Meyer & Sons, Inc., 41 N.W.2d 818, 230 Minn. 583, 1950 Minn. LEXIS 654 (Mich. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action in the district court for breach of warranty in the sale of goods. Defendant, Meyer & Sons, Inc., moved for an order making Motor Power Equipment Company a third-party defendant in the action, granting leave to file and serve a proposed third-party complaint upon said company, and requiring the company to answer the same within a time fixed by the court. The court granted the motion, and defendant Motor Power Equipment Company appealed from the order.

Since the filing of this appeal, we have held that an order denying a motion for the joinder of additional parties, defendant or plaintiff, pursuant to M. S. A. 540.16, as amended by L. 1947, c. 152, is not appealable. Chapman v. Dorsey, 230 Minn. 279, 41 N. W. (2d) 438. That decision is controlling here.

Therefore, on our own motion, we dismiss the appeal.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an action in the district court for breach of warranty in the sale of goods. Defendant, Meyer & Sons, Inc., moved for an order making Motor Power Equipment Company a third-party defendant in the action, granting leave to file and serve a proposed third-party complaint upon said company, and requiring the company to answer the same within a time fixed by the court. The court granted the motion, and defendant Motor Power Equipment Company appealed from the order.

Since the filing of this appeal, we have held that an order denying a motion for the joinder of additional parties, defendant or plaintiff, pursuant to M. S. A. 540.16, as amended by L. 1947, c. 152, is not appealable. Chapman v. Dorsey, 230 Minn. 279, 41 N. W. (2d) 438. That decision is controlling here.

Therefore, on our own motion, we dismiss the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.W.2d 818, 230 Minn. 583, 1950 Minn. LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnegan-v-meyer-sons-inc-minn-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack