Anderson v. Langula
Cited by
- In the Matter of: Ester Berestov, on behalf of minor children v. Betsalel Berestov, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- Mely v. State Farm Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- County of Stearns v. Schaaf 472 N.W.2d 191 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Matter of Jost 437 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Rock v. Hennepin Broadcasting Associates, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Willeck v. Willeck 176 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1970
- Beatty v. Winona Housing & Redevelopment Authority 151 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1967
- In Re American Finnish Workers Society 76 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1956
- Chapman v. Dorsey 230 Minn. 279 Minn. 1950
- Quevli v. First National Bank of Windom 32 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1948
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Gottstein v. St. Jean 79 Minn. 232
- Chamberlain v. Bradley 82 N.W. 311
- Davis v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 179 Minn. 225
- Schuster v. Schuster 84 Minn. 403
Opinion text
Wilson, C. J. This action was called for trial. The parties and their attorneys were present in court. Defendant moved to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. The motion was granted, and from the order of dismissal plaintiff has attempted to appeal to this court. The order was nonappealable. Gottstein v. St. Jean, 79 Minn. 232 , 82 N. W. 311 . Respondent argues that we have reversed the Gottstein case in Davis v. N. P. Ry. Co. 179 Minn. 225 , 229 N. W. 86 , wherein we parsed upon the merits of an appeal of this character. The answer is that counsel in that case did not raise the question of nonappeal- *251 ability of the order, and the court’s consideration of the case was an oversight. It is also argued, that this order is appealable under G-. S. 1923 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) § 9198(7), as “affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding.” In support of this contention our attention is called to Schuster v. Schuster, 84 Minn. 403, 407 , 87 N. W. 1014 , involving an order allowing attorney fees in a divorce action. That order was held appealable under the statute mentioned, and it Avas there stated that a “special proceeding” is a generic term for all civil remedies in.courts of justice which are not ordinary actions. This contemplates a legal right to be enforced usually upon Avritten application to a court. It relates to remedies other than ordinary actions. Special proceedings usually mean such proceedings as may be commenced independently of a pending action by petition or motion, upon notice, in order to obtain special relief. It includes a variety of matters as indicated in 7 Wd. & Phr. (3 ser.) 87. The application in the Schuster case, 84 Minn. 403 , 87 N. W. 1014 , furnishes an apt illustration. In the instant case the action came on for trial, the motion' Avas made orally at the trial when all the parties Avere present. The order contemplated a judgment from which an appeal would lie. The appeal is dismissed.