Stromme v. Rieck
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county for specific performance of a written agreement for the exchange of land and to recover $1,000 damages. After the decision of the former appeal (see 107 Minn. 177, 119 N. W. 948) plaintiff moved the trial court for leave to file a supplemental complaint. From an order, Brooks, J., granting the motion, defendant Gustav Rieck appealed.
1Per curiam
This is an appeal from an order, made before judgment, granting-leave to file and serve a proposed supplemental complaint. Is such an order appealable? No. An order, made after judgment, allowing an amended or supplemental pleading, is appealable, because it. directly affects the judgment, and is a final order involving the merits, of the action, or some part thereof. North v. Webster, 36 Minn. 99, 30 N. W. 429; Voak v. National Investment Co., 51 Minn. 450, 53 N. W. 708.
If such an order is made before judgment, it may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment, when entered, or on an appeal…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Manwaring v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Hanley v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- City of Winona v. Minnesota Railway Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- North v. WebsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Voak v. National Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hoyt v. Kittson County State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Swanson v. AlworthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. HawleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Blied v. BarnardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.