Oehler v. City of St. Paul

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Oehler v. City of St. Paul

218 N.W. 234, 174 Minn. 66, 1928 Minn. LEXIS 1088

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 2, 1928

DocketNo. 26,651.

StatusPublished

This text of 218 N.W. 234 (Oehler v. City of St. Paul) 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

Oehler v. City of St. Paul, 218 N.W. 234, 174 Minn. 66, 1928 Minn. LEXIS 1088 (Mich. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action to annul the appointment of defendant Clyde R. May to the position of general superintendent and engineer of the water department of St. Paul, and for further relief. The defend *67

The statute (§ 9498(4) ) provides that “when upon the entry of an order overruling a demurrer, the trial court shall certify that the question presented by the demurrer is in his opinion important and doubtful, and such certification is ,made part of the order overruling the demurrer, an appeal from such order may be taken.”

In this case no appeal was taken. The court is without jurisdiction. The statute contemplates that the court may incorporate a certificate of importance and doubt. If it does, the losing party may appeal. The option is with him. If the court does not certify he cannot appeal. The court does not, as in criminal cases, certify the'proceedings and specific questions to this court. G-. S. 1928, § 10756. Without an appeal we are without jurisdiction, for the review is only by appeal.

The defendants presented and there was allowed a so-called bill of exceptions containing various papers, including the complaint, demurrer and order overruling, along with a number of affidavits, the purport of which we do not stop to examine. The complaint and the demurrer and the order upon the demurrer tell this court what was done. There is no place for a bill of exceptions. The proceedings in this court are dismissed and the case remanded.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action to annul the appointment of defendant Clyde R. May to the position of general superintendent and engineer of the water department of St. Paul, and for further relief. The defend *67

The statute (§ 9498(4) ) provides that “when upon the entry of an order overruling a demurrer, the trial court shall certify that the question presented by the demurrer is in his opinion important and doubtful, and such certification is ,made part of the order overruling the demurrer, an appeal from such order may be taken.”

In this case no appeal was taken. The court is without jurisdiction. The statute contemplates that the court may incorporate a certificate of importance and doubt. If it does, the losing party may appeal. The option is with him. If the court does not certify he cannot appeal. The court does not, as in criminal cases, certify the'proceedings and specific questions to this court. G-. S. 1928, § 10756. Without an appeal we are without jurisdiction, for the review is only by appeal.

The defendants presented and there was allowed a so-called bill of exceptions containing various papers, including the complaint, demurrer and order overruling, along with a number of affidavits, the purport of which we do not stop to examine. The complaint and the demurrer and the order upon the demurrer tell this court what was done. There is no place for a bill of exceptions. The proceedings in this court are dismissed and the case remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 N.W. 234, 174 Minn. 66, 1928 Minn. LEXIS 1088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oehler-v-city-of-st-paul-minn-1928.