Savings Bank v. St. Paul Plow Co.
SAVINGS BANK OF ST. PAUL v. ST. PAUL PLOW COMPANY and Another
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER OURIAM.
This cause was tried without a jury, and the trial court made its findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the defendants. Thereupon the plaintiff made a motion to set aside the conclusions of law and for judgment, notwithstanding such conclusions, in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying the motion, and the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is nonappealable. The motion must be granted.
An order denying a motion that the court change its conclusion of law in its decision upon its trial of a cause without a jury is not appealable. Shepard v. Pettit, 30 Minn. 119 , 14 N. W. 511 . The plaintiff, however, claims that the appeal lies by virtue of Laws 1895, c. 320. Assuming, without so deciding, that this statute applies to a case tried by the court without a jury, still the order in question is not appealable. No appeal lies from an order, under this statute, granting or denying a motion for judgment. St. *8 Anthony Falls Bank v. Graham, 67 Minn. 318 , 69 N. W. 1077 ; Oelschlegel v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 50 , 73 N. W. 631 .
Appeal dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 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.