Davis v. Royce
Cited by
- Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 42 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1950
- In Re Estate of Stevens 19 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1945
- Marty v. Nordby 276 N.W. 739 Minn. 1937
- Thompson v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 226 N.W. 700 Minn. 1929
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Heide v. Lyons 128 Minn. 488
- Twitchell v. Cummings 151 N.W. 139
- Brown v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. 44 Minn. 322
- Lockwood v. Bock 46 Minn. 73
- Reynolds v. St. Paul Loan & Trust Co. 48 N.W. 458
- Security State Bank v. Brecht 150 Minn. 502
- United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin 160 Minn. 530
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. The appeal is by plaintiff from an order refusing to vacate an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of misconduct of the prevailing party. The order granting a new trial did not state that it was based exclusively upon errors of law. It purported to be made in the interest of justice, and hence would come in the class of discretionary orders. Such an order is not appealable. Heide v. Lyons, 128 Minn. 488 , 151 N. W. 139 ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 300. It is well settled that an order refusing to vacate a nonappealable order is not appealable. Brown v. Minnesota T. Mfg. Co. 44 Minn. 322 , 46 N. W. 560 ; Lockwood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 73 , 48 N. W. 458 ; Security State Bank v. Brecht, 150 Minn. 502 , 185 N. W. 1021 ; United States R. & P. Co. Inc. v. Melin, 160 Minn. 530 , 200 N. W. 807 . The appeal must be dismissed.