Independent School District No. 84 v. Rittmiller

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Independent School District No. 84 v. Rittmiller

51 N.W.2d 664, 235 Minn. 556, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 615

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 1, 1952

Docket35,731

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 51 N.W.2d 664 (Independent School District No. 84 v. Rittmiller) 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

Independent School District No. 84 v. Rittmiller, 51 N.W.2d 664, 235 Minn. 556, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 615 (Mich. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages to its school bus in an automobile collision alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence. Defendant made a motion to dismiss the *557 action, apparently on the ground that he had made a tender of a sum sufficient to cover the entire amount of plaintiffs claim, plus costs, and the tender had been refused. The' trial court denied the motion, and defendant appealed from the order. Plaintiff now-moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.

The motion to dismiss is granted. An order denying a motion to dismiss a cause of action is not appealable. It does nothing more than retain the action for trial. It does not involve the merits of the cause of action, nor is it a final order. State v. Hansen, 183 Minn. 562, 237 N. W. 416; State v. Riebel, 166 Minn. 497, 207 N. W. 631; Fitzgibbins v. Yennie, 132 Minn. 473, 157 N. W. 114; Pillsbury v. Foley, 61 Minn. 434, 63 N. W. 1027.

Defendant contends that when a tender is made under M. S. A. 546.41 and is refused the action must be dismissed. This section reads:

“If the action be for the recovery of damages for a tort, instead of the offer of judgment provided for in section 546.40, the defendant may tender a sum of money as damages or compensation, together with costs then accrued. If such tender be not accepted, the plaintiff shall have no costs unless he recover more than the sum tendered; and the defendant’s costs shall be deducted from the recovery, or, if they exceed the recovery, he shall have judgment for the excess. The fact of such tender having been made shall not be pleaded or given in evidence.”

This statutory provision does not change the rule respecting the appealability of an order denying a motion to dismiss. The consequences resulting from a refusal of a tender are set forth in the statute. No further interpretation is necessary.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages to its school bus in an automobile collision alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence. Defendant made a motion to dismiss the *557 action, apparently on the ground that he had made a tender of a sum sufficient to cover the entire amount of plaintiffs claim, plus costs, and the tender had been refused. The' trial court denied the motion, and defendant appealed from the order. Plaintiff now-moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.

The motion to dismiss is granted. An order denying a motion to dismiss a cause of action is not appealable. It does nothing more than retain the action for trial. It does not involve the merits of the cause of action, nor is it a final order. State v. Hansen, 183 Minn. 562, 237 N. W. 416; State v. Riebel, 166 Minn. 497, 207 N. W. 631; Fitzgibbins v. Yennie, 132 Minn. 473, 157 N. W. 114; Pillsbury v. Foley, 61 Minn. 434, 63 N. W. 1027.

Defendant contends that when a tender is made under M. S. A. 546.41 and is refused the action must be dismissed. This section reads:

“If the action be for the recovery of damages for a tort, instead of the offer of judgment provided for in section 546.40, the defendant may tender a sum of money as damages or compensation, together with costs then accrued. If such tender be not accepted, the plaintiff shall have no costs unless he recover more than the sum tendered; and the defendant’s costs shall be deducted from the recovery, or, if they exceed the recovery, he shall have judgment for the excess. The fact of such tender having been made shall not be pleaded or given in evidence.”

This statutory provision does not change the rule respecting the appealability of an order denying a motion to dismiss. The consequences resulting from a refusal of a tender are set forth in the statute. No further interpretation is necessary.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.W.2d 664, 235 Minn. 556, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/independent-school-district-no-84-v-rittmiller-minn-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack