Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

174 Minn. 611

219 N.W 928

Davis v. Royce

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 15, 1928

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1928-06-15

Relies on Security State Bank v. Brecht · Brown v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. · Lockwood v. Bock

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1928-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1950

4 state decisions

101928193019401950decided

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 →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The appeal is by plaintiff from an order refusing to vacate an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of misconduct of the prevailing party. The order granting a new trial did not state that it was based exclusively upon errors of law. It purported to be made in the interest of justice, and hence would come in the class of discretionary orders. Such an order is not appealable. Heide v. Lyons, 128 Minn. 488, 151 N. W. 139; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 300. It is well settled that an order refusing to vacate a nonappealable order is not appealable. Brown v. Minnesota T. Mfg. Co. 44 Minn. 322, 46 N. W. 560; Lockwood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 73, 48 N. W. 458; Security State Bank v. Brecht, 150 Minn. 502, 185 N. W. 1021; United States R. & P. Co. Inc. v. Melin, 160 Minn. 530, 200 N. W. 807.

¶2 The appeal must be dismissed.

/174/minn/611 · .json · Public domain