Davis v. Royce
David Davis v. Alice E. Royce. [Fn1]
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
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 .
The appeal must be dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.