Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Hawley
PHILADELPHIA STORAGE BATTERY COMPANY v. ROBERT HAWLEY AND ANOTHER, ETC.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal from an order permitting plaintiff to serve and file a reply to their answer, and insist that, in permitting the service of the reply some months after the expiration of the statutory time, the court abused the discretion conferred upon it by section 7786, G. S. 1913.
An order relieving a party from default and granting him leave to interpose an answer or reply, made after the entry of judgment, is appealable, as such orders cannot be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment. But such orders, made before judgment, are not appealable, for they may be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment and therefore are not final *539 upon the merits of the question involved. National A. Exch. Bank v. Cargill, 39 Minn. 477 , 40 N. W. 570 ; Stromme v. Rieck, 110 Minn. 472 , 125 N. W. 1021 ; Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Menage, 66 Minn. 447 , 69 N. W. 224 ; Blied v. Barnard, 130 Minn. 534 , 153 N. W. 305 ; Lovering v. Webb Pub. Co. 108 Minn. 201 , 120 N. W. 688 , 121 N. W. 911 . The order in question having been made 'before the case was brought to trial is not appeal-able, and the appeal must be, and is, dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 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.