Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley

152 N.W. 653, 129 Minn. 536, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 762

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 14, 1915·No. Nos. 19,126-(71)·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon a former appeal in this ease a new trial was granted. Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley, 124 Minn. 183, 144 N. W. 768. After the case had been remanded, plaintiff made an application to file an amended and supplemental complaint. This application was denied by the trial court, and plaintiff appealed from the order denying it. It is well settled that such an order, made before judgment, is not appealable. Hanley v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Cass County, 87 Minn. 209, 91 N. W. 756; Stromme v. Rieck, 110 Minn. 472, 125 N. W. 1021.

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed. So ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon a former appeal in this ease a new trial was granted. Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley, 124 Minn. 183, 144 N. W. 768. After the case had been remanded, plaintiff made an application to file an amended and supplemental complaint. This application was denied by the trial court, and plaintiff appealed from the order denying it. It is well settled that such an order, made before judgment, is not appealable. Hanley v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Cass County, 87 Minn. 209, 91 N. W. 756; Stromme v. Rieck, 110 Minn. 472, 125 N. W. 1021.

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed. So ordered.

Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley, 152 N.W. 653, 129 Minn. 536, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 762 (Mich. 1915).

Pincite

152 N.W. 653 (Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related