Cited by

11 In Tombs, we relied on two cases to support our conclusion that neither this court nor the rules of civil procedure could extend the time for appeal:

ed in part on a ‘“preference that actions be determined on the merits’ ” ()); Tombs v, Ashworth, 255 Minn. 55 , (noting that in general “‘limitations upon the time for taking an appeal are to be liberally construed to avoid a forfeiture of the right of appeal’ ” (quoting Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co., 231 Minn. 167 , )).

See Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co., 231 Minn. 167, 173

Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co., 231 Minn. 167, 171

Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co., 231 Minn. 167, 171

He relies on Kottkes’ Bus Company v. Hippie, 286 Minn. 526 , and Weckeriing v. McNiven Land Company, 231 Minn. 167 , which follow the general rule that orders refusing to vacate authorized judgments are not ap-pealable.

In Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167, 171 , we said: “* * =ic Although an order refusing to vacate an unauthorized judgment is appealable, we are not here concerned with an unauthorized judgment.

Gasser v. Spalding, 164 Minn. 443 , ; Matchan v. Phoenix Land Investment Co. 165 Minn. 479 , ; Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167, 171 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701, 703 ; LaFond v. Sczepanski, 273 Minn. 293 , 141 N. W. (2d) 485 .

Co. v. Village of Nashwauk, 176 Minn. 117 , ; Breslaw v. Breslaw, 229 Minn. 371 , 39 N. W. (2d) 499 ; Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701 ; State v. Alm, 261 Minn. 238 , 111 N. W. (2d) 517 ; Tombs v. Ashworth, 255 Minn. 55 , 95 N. W. (2d) 423 .

Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701 .

2 In Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167, 172 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701, 704 , we said: «* * * Although limitations upon the time for taking an appeal are to be liberally construed to avoid a forfeiture of the right of appeal, neither the supreme court nor the district court can extend the time for appeal by a stay of proceedings or by any order designed to accomp

In applying that rule we have said that the limitation of time is so far jurisdictional that the parties cannot waive the objection or by stipulation clothe the supreme court with authority to determine a belated appeal.” We there quoted Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167, 172 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701 , 704: “* * * Although limitations upon the time for taking an appeal are to be liberally construed to avoid a forfeiture of the right of appeal, neither the supreme court nor the district cou

We stated: “The great weight of authority is that a trial court may not permit, in any indirect manner, an extension of time for taking an appeal, particularly after the time for taking it has already elapsed, so as to evade an express statutory requirement that the appeal must be taken within a certain time.” To the same effect is Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167, 171 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701, 703 , where we dismissed an appeal based on an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment whic

1 In Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167, 172 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701, 704 , we said: “* * * the attempt of the trial court to extend the time of appeal— whether it be from the judgment or an order — was wholly ineffective.

See, Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701 .

Various motions were made after this to vacate those judgments, and an appeal was finally prosecuted to this court upon a denial of those motions and this court held in Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701 , that the orders appealed from were not appealable.

Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701 ; Nelson v. Auman, 221 Minn. 46 , 20 N. W. (2d) 702 ; Johnson v. Union Savings B. & T. Co. 193 Minn. 357 , ; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jobe, 188 Minn. 598 , .

See, Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167, 172 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701, 704 .