Cited by

E. g., Curran v. Nash, 224 Minn. 571 , 29 N. W. (2d) 436 , 174 A. L. R. 411 (order overruling special appearance to object to jurisdiction); Lowe v. Nixon, 170 Minn. 391 , Baer v. Waseca Milling Co. 143 Minn. 483 , (order to make a pleading more definite and certain); Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , (order striking case from calendar so as to determine that it could never be tried in that court); Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 256 (333) (order setting aside stipulation for dismissal); Levi v.

We so held in Chadbourne v. Reed, *37 83 Minn. 447 , .

Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , .

As early as Chadboume v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , , this court held that multiple defendants residing in different counties had the right to obtain a change of venue to the county of their own selection, even though the action had originally been commenced in a proper county.

We so held in Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , .

Chad-bourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ; and the filing of proof of proper demand ipso facto removes the cause to the county so demanded.

Co. 71 Minn. 45 , ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 80 Minn. 322 , ; State v. O’Brien, 83 Minn. 6 , ; Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ; Bilsborrow v. Pierce, 112 Minn. 336 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 *238 Minn. 486, ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , .

Co. 71 Minn. 45 , ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 80 Minn. 322 , ; State v. O’Brien, 83 Minn. 6 , ; Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 Minn. 486 , .

There may be exceptions (Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ) which are not here important.

Appellant resists the motion, citing Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , , also Scott v. Miller Liquor Co. 122 Minn. 377 , , and Peterson v. Carlson, 127 Minn. 324 , .

Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , , is relied on as authority for the proposition that an order or action of the district court which puts an end to further steps in that court in a cause properly triable therein is reviewable on appeal.

State v. District Court of Chippewa County, 85 Minn. 283 , ; Suter v. Page, 64 Minn. 444 , ; Grimes v. Ericson, 92 Minn. 164 , ; Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , .

The road under construction in Schus v. Powers-Simpson Co., 83 Minn. 447 , , was an extensive logging railroad, and it was contended unsuccessfully that the statute did not apply to it, because it was not organized as a railroad corporation, and was not engaged as a common carrier of passengers and freight, but confined its railroad business exclusively to its own affairs.

Petitioners assume said order is not reviewable on appeal, upon the authority of Carpenter v. Comfort, 22 Minn. 539 , distinguishing Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , , and Grimes v. Ericson, supra, page 164, and call our attention to the case of State v. District Court of Meeker County, 77 Minn. 302 , , in which it was held that mandamus from this court is the only remedy preserved to a party litigant to review the decision of the district court in a li