In Re Estate of Stevens

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Estate of Stevens

19 N.W.2d 744, 220 Minn. 457, 1945 Minn. LEXIS 540

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided August 3, 1945·No. No. 34,071.·Published

Opinion

Loring, Chief Justice.

This case comes before us upon a motion by plaintiff to dismiss the appeal, which is from an order granting a motion for a new trial made before the entry of judgment in the cause. As authority for the appealability of the order, the defendant cites Ayer v. C. M. St. P. & P. R. Co. 189 Minn. 359, 249 N. W. 581; Kruchowski v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 195 Minn. 537, 263 N. W. 616, 265 N. W. 303, 821; Vasatka v. Matsch, 216 Minn. 530, 13 N. W. (2d) 483. *458 In all these cases, the motion for new trial was made after judgment, and the order granting it was held to be appealable because-the effect of it was to vacate the judgment.

An order granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence made before the entry of judgment is not appealable under the statute. Minn. St. 1941, § 605.09(4), (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 9498 [4]); Spicer v. Stebbins, 184 Minn. 77, 237 N. W. 844; Kramer v. Bennett, 174 Minn. 606, 219 N. W. 291; Davis v. Royce, 174 Minn. 611, 219 N. W. 928. The validity of the stays granted by the trial court cannot be presented here on this motion. Plaintiff’s remedy against such unauthorized stays was by writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Byram v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 271, 217 N. W. 351.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Loring, Chief Justice.

This case comes before us upon a motion by plaintiff to dismiss the appeal, which is from an order granting a motion for a new trial made before the entry of judgment in the cause. As authority for the appealability of the order, the defendant cites Ayer v. C. M. St. P. & P. R. Co. 189 Minn. 359, 249 N. W. 581; Kruchowski v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 195 Minn. 537, 263 N. W. 616, 265 N. W. 303, 821; Vasatka v. Matsch, 216 Minn. 530, 13 N. W. (2d) 483. *458 In all these cases, the motion for new trial was made after judgment, and the order granting it was held to be appealable because-the effect of it was to vacate the judgment.

An order granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence made before the entry of judgment is not appealable under the statute. Minn. St. 1941, § 605.09(4), (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 9498 [4]); Spicer v. Stebbins, 184 Minn. 77, 237 N. W. 844; Kramer v. Bennett, 174 Minn. 606, 219 N. W. 291; Davis v. Royce, 174 Minn. 611, 219 N. W. 928. The validity of the stays granted by the trial court cannot be presented here on this motion. Plaintiff’s remedy against such unauthorized stays was by writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Byram v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 271, 217 N. W. 351.

Appeal dismissed.

In Re Estate of Stevens, 19 N.W.2d 744, 220 Minn. 457, 1945 Minn. LEXIS 540 (Mich. 1945).

Pincite

19 N.W.2d 744 (In Re Estate of Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related