Cited by

On the other hand, we early said in Little v. Leighton, 46 Minn. 201 , , that an order refusing to vacate an order denying a new trial was not appealable.

Worrlein v. Maier, 177 Minn. 474 , , following Little v. Leighton, 46 Minn. 201 , .” *488 It appears to us that the conclusion reached in that case is applicable here, because, after all, the motion of November 9, 1948, to reconsider the matter decided in the court’s order of October 21, 1948, seems to be at best only an unsuccessful motion to vacate the first order, which was not appealed from wit

Worrlein v. Maier, 177 Minn. 474 , , following Little v. Leighton, 46 Minn. 201 , .

United States R. & P. Co. Inc. v. Melin, 160 Minn. 530 , ; Little v. Leighton, 46 Minn. 201 , .

Little v. Leighton, 46 Minn. 201 , ; Worrlein v. Maier, 177 Minn. 474, 475 , ; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .

Worrlein v. Maier, 177 Minn. 474 , , following Little v. Leighton, 46 Minn. 201 , .

Little v. Leighton, 46 Minn. 201 , .

* * * Such precaution is believed to be extraordinary, and to exceed the strict measure" of common prudence.” In Beanstrom v. N. P. R. Co. 46 Minn. 193 , , Mitchell, J., said: “While the decisions of this court are uniform to the effect that, under ordinary circumstances, it is the duty of a person to look and listen for approaching trains before venturing to cross a railroad, yet we have never held that having done so, he is bound, as a matter of law, t

R. Co. 46 Minn. 193 , ; Hendrickson v. Great North.

R. Co., 46 Minn. 193 , .

See Beanstrom v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 46 Minn. 193 , ( ;) Shaber v. St.

R. Co., 46 Minn. 193 , ( 48 N. W. Rep.

See Beanstrom v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 46 Minn. 193 , ( 48 N. W. Rep.