Cited by

Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .

Bank v. Fleming, 168 Minn. 50 , ; Pioneer Land & Loan Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .

Section 546.27 (§ 9311); Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .

It *311 is a final adjudication.” Pioneer Land & Loan Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422, 423, ; McElroy v. Board of Education, su pra.

1927, § 9311); Tharalson v. Wyman, 58 Minn. 233 , ; Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .

Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .

1927, § 9311, it is provided that: “When an issue of fact has been tried by the court, the decision shall be in writing, the facts found and the conclusions of law shall be separately stated, and judgment shall be entered accordingly.” This requirement has been pointed out in several of our cases, among them Pioneer Land & Loan Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , ; Fredsall v. Minnesota State L. Ins.

The statutory language (§ 9311) is clear: “When an issue of fact has been tried by the court, the decision shall be in writing, the facts found and the conclusions of law shall be separately stated, and judgment shall be entered accordingly.” In Pioneer Land & Loan Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , , it was held that the statute “applied to all issues of fact tried in the- district court loithout a jury and consequently in every such case, however arising, which is tried and disposed of on the

Wagner v. Nagel, 33 Minn. 348 , ; Pioneer Land & Loan Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .

1927, § 9311, provides that “the decision shall be in writing, the facts found and the conclusions of law shall be separately stated, and judgment shall be entered accordingly.” Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , ; Palmer v. First Minneapolis Trust Co. 179 Minn. 381 , .

Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , ; Palmer v. First Minneapolis Tr.

Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .

G. S. 1923 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) § 9311; Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , ; Morrissey v. Morrissey, 172 Minn. 72 , ; Palmer v. First Minneapolis Tr.

Pioneer L. L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , 195 N.W.

S. 1923, § 9311, provides that “when an issue of fact has been tried by the court, the decision shall be in writing, the facts found and the conclusions of law shall be separately stated, and judgment shall be entered accordingly.” Under the authority of Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , , and cases therein cited, such findings and conclusions should have been made in this case.

G. S. 1923, § 9311; Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , ; In re Estate of Roberts, 166 Minn. 315 -319, ; Goodhue County Nat.

Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .

1923, § 9311 (Pioneer L. L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , 195 N.W.

S. 1923, § 9311 (Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , ), to a finding as to the amount of income derived from each parcel of real estate, the amount of taxes and interest paid thereon, and from what source *320 the money was derived for such purposes up to June 19, 1922, as a basis upon which to determine the amount of property to which Dorothy J. Roberts

G. S. 1913, § 7815; Pioneer L. & L. Co. v. Bernard, 156 Minn. 422 , .