Matchan v. Phoenix Land Investment Co.
This text of 205 N.W. 637 (Matchan v. Phoenix Land Investment Co.) 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.
Opinion
These proceedings, two in number, involve but one controversy and will be disposed of by this one order.
The appeal is by R. R. Betcher and First National Holding Company, a corporation, from an order denying their motion to vacate a judgment. It appears that both appellants were parties to the case as tried and decided below. The points they now urge in their attack upon the judgment could have been made by an appeal therefrom. Therefore, they cannot be reviewed by a motion to vacate the judgment. Gasser v. Spalding, 164 Minn. 443, 205 N. W. 374. In consequence the order denying the motion is not appealable, and the trial court was right in refusing to settle the case or approve an appeal bond.
The application for a writ of mandamus directing the district court of Hennepin county to settle a ease and approve a bond on appeal is denied and the appeal itself is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
205 N.W. 637, 165 Minn. 479, 1925 Minn. LEXIS 1170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matchan-v-phoenix-land-investment-co-minn-1925.