Hoyt v. Kittson County State Bank
Cited by
- Coughlin v. Town of Rosemount 35 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1949
- Kiebach v. Kiebach 35 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1948
- Radabaugh v. Just 30 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1947
- Belluci v. Marra 13 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1944
- In Re Estate of Williams 13 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1944
- Williams v. Allen 13 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1944
- Droege v. Brockmeyer 7 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1943
- Julius v. Lenz 3 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1942
- Driessen v. Moening 294 N.W. 206 Minn. 1940
- Dayton-Lee, Inc. v. McGowan 279 N.W. 580 Minn. 1938
- Louis F. Dow Co. v. Bittner 241 N.W. 569 Minn. 1932
- Hoyt v. Kittson County State Bank 238 N.W. 41 Minn. 1931
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Nash v. Kirschoff 161 Minn. 409
- City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 115 Minn. 514
- State Ex Rel. Stone v. Probst 165 Minn. 361
- Clark v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. 34 Minn. 289
- Spencer v. Stanley 74 Minn. 35
- Stromme v. Rieck 110 Minn. 472
- McCauley v. Wuest 125 N.W. 1021
- Hanley v. Board of County Commissioners 87 Minn. 209
- Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley 129 Minn. 536
Opinion text
Dibell, J. Action by the vendee in a land contract for an accounting and for specific performance. There Avere findings for the defendant. The plaintiff moved in the alternative for amended findings or a neAV trial. Her motion was denied. The defendant moved for *94 leave to file a supplemental answer alleging the cancelation of the land contract. The motion was granted. The plaintiff appealed from the order denying her motion to amend the findings and her motion for a new trial, and from the order granting the defendant’s motion to file a supplemental answer. The order denying the motion for amended findings is not appealable. Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , 201 N. W. 617 , and cases cited; City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Ry. Co. 115 Minn. 514 , 133 N. W. 80 ; State ex rel. Stone v. Probst, 165 Minn. 361 , 206 N. W. 642 . A ruling upon it might change or otherwise affect the result below or give a ground for an assignment of error in this court, but nothing more. The appeal so far as it was based on a motion for amended findings must be dismissed. The order so far as it denied a new trial is appealable. No ground for a new trial was stated in the motion. No question of law is raised, and the order must be affirmed. Clark v. C. N. Nelson Lbr. Co. 34 Minn. 289 , 25 N. W. 628 ; Spencer v. Stanley, 74 Minn. 35 , 76 N. W. 953 . The defendant moved for leave to file a supplemental answer. This motion was granted. The order granting it is not appealable. See Stromme v. Rieck, 110 Minn. 472 , 125 N. W. 1021 ; Hanley v. Co. Commrs. of Cass County, 87 Minn. 209 , 91 N. W. 756 ; Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley, 129 Minn. 536 , 152 N. W. 653 ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 309. This appeal must be dismissed. There is left for trial such issues as may be raised by the supplemental answer and the pleading thereto. If judgment is entered either party may appeal and such questions as our practice permits may be raised on the record now here or as it may be after the trial upon the issues raised by the supplemental answer. See 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 386, et seq. Order denying new trial affirmed; otherwise appeal dismissed.