Cited by

2 Among the cases relied upon by plaintiff is Bingham v. Board of Supervisors, 6 Minn. 82 (136).

See, Miller v. Natwick, 110 Minn. 448 , ; Bates v. Bates, 66 Minn. 131 , ; Bingham v. Board of Supervisors, 6 Minn. 82 (136).

Amundson v. Cloverleaf Memorial Park Assn. and Shaw v. Henderson, supra; Bingham v. Board of Supervisors, 6 Minn. 82 (136); H. Hack- *408 feld & Co. v. United States, 197 U. S. 442 , 25 S. Ct. 456 , 49 L. ed. 826; City of Chicago v. Drexel, 141 Ill.

It was expressly held that the order was not analogous to those involved in Bingham v. Board of Supervisors, 6 Minn. 82 (136) (where an order setting aside a stipulation of facts was held appealable), or Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 256 (333) (where an *Page 641 order vacating a stipulation for dismissal was held appealable).

Bingham v. Board of Supervisors, 6 Minn. 82 (136); Warren v. G. N. Ry.

of *73 Winona County, 6 Minn. 82 (136); Shaw v. Henderson, 7 Minn. 386 (480); Warren v. Great Northern Ry.

of Winona County, 6 Minn. 82 (136) (an order setting aside a stipulation of facts); Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 256 (333) (an order vacating a stipulation for a dismissal); and Plano Mnfg.

Bingham v. Board of Supervisors of Winona County, 6 Minn. 82 (136).

of Winona County, 6 Minn. 82 [136]), as authorizing the dismissal of an action (Wells v. Penfield, 70 Minn. 76 , ; [Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 256 [333]), and to sustain a stipulation that the action shall abide the event of another action involving the same issues (Eidam v. Finnegan, 48 Minn. 53 , , 16 L. R. A. 507).

To this end counsel cites Bingham v. Board of Supervisors of Winona County, 6 Minn. 82 (136); Albee v. Hayden, 25 Minn. 267 ; Bray v. Doheny, 39 Minn. 355 , ; Eidam v. Finnegan, 48 Minn. 53 , , 16 L. R. A. 507; Warren v. Great Northern Ry.

of Winona Co., 6 Minn. 82 (136); Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 256 (333).

Whether it would be so if it were in fact an order setting aside the stipulation (see Bingham v. Board of Supervisors, 6 Minn. 82 [136]), we need not decide, for it is clear that the order does not set aside the stipulation; on the contrary, it simply opens the *546 cause as to the issue of fraud, which was left open to proof by the stipulation, and expressly denies the motion in all other respects, —that is, the court, by the order, refused to

Basing its decision on the statute, the court in Bingham v. County of Winona, 6 Minn. 82 , (136,) sustained a stipulation by the attorney, although it waived three material defences.