Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Minn. 73

Lockwood v. Bock

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 8, 1891

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1891-04-08

Motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal from the orders of the district court for Eamsey county, Kerr, J., presiding, which are stated in the opinion.

Relies on Cochran v. Toher · Brown v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-04-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1948

9 state decisions

30189119001910192019301940decided

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 →

Collins, J.1

¶1This appeal is from two orders of the same import practically, — one being an order for judgment on the pleadings, in plaintiff’s favor; the other, an order refusing to set it aside. The respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that neither of said orders is appealable. It is well settled that the first-mentioned, ordering judgment on the pleadings, is not. Lamb v. McCanna, 14 Minn. 385, (513.) The one subsequently made, whereby defendant’s motion to vacate a non-appealable order was denied, is clearly within the rule stated in Brown v. Minn. Thresher Mfg. Co., 44 Minn. 322, (46 N. W. Rep. 560,) and the appeal must be dismissed. The motion to vacate and set aside the order for judgment was superfluous, and, if an appeal could be permitted from an order denying *74such a motion, there would exist no possible reason for making or adhering to the rule established in Lamb v. McCanna, supra.

¶2Appeal dismissed.

¶3 Vanderburgh, J., took no part in this case. Mitchell, J., being absent when this decision was made and filed, took no part therein.

/46/minn/73 · .json · Public domain