Legal Opinion

Davis v. Royce

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 15, 1928No. 26,757PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per 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…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Security State Bank v. BrechtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  2. Brown v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  3. United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. MelinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  4. Heide v. LyonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  5. Lockwood v. BockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  2. Marty v. NordbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  3. Thompson v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  4. In Re Estate of StevensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API