Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

169 Minn. 172

210 N.W 877

Works v. Tiber

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 19, 1926

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1926-11-19

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1926-11-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1981

6 state decisions

201926193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dibeud, J.

¶1 Action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land by the defendants to one Mott which contract was assigned by Mott to the plaintiff. Upon the motion of the defendants Mott and one Honn were made parties. Honn and the plaintiff appeal separately from the order.

¶2 The two appellants filed a cost bond, not a supersedeas. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff and Honn. This was the situation when the appeal was heard.

¶3 It was for the plaintiff and Honn, if they desired to stay further proceedings pending the appeal, to file a supersedeas bond. Not de *173 siring to do so they could preserve their rights by proper objections at the trial. If the order were reversed it would not affect the judgment. The only use to the plaintiff and Honn of a determination of this appeal on its merits is its use as a precedent, if favorable to them, on their appeal from the judgment, if they take one. We make precedents only as incident to the determination of actual controversies. The question is in the nature of a moot one. See Ann. Cas. 1918B, 554, 558-560.

¶4 Appeal dismissed.

/169/minn/172 · .json · Public domain