Chouteau v. Rice
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This was an appeal from a decree of the District Court of Washington County, allowing, the plea filed by the appellees, and dissolving the-injunction. The appellees moved to dismiss tlio appeal:— 1. Because the decrees appealed from are interlocutory, and not final. 2. Because the dissolution of an injunction is a matter resting entirely in the discretion of the Judge making the order, and therefore, not properly the subject of appeal.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the District Court of Washington County, allowing, the plea filed by the appellees, and dissolving the-injunction. The appellees moved to dismiss tlio appeal:— 1. Because the decrees appealed from are interlocutory, and not final. 2. Because the dissolution of an injunction is a matter resting entirely in the discretion of the Judge making the order, and therefore, not properly the subject of appeal. The fair construction of the statute is, that only such orders and decrees as are a determination of the cause below, are appealable. In other words, that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Cooper, J.
This cause came to this Court on appeal from the U. S. District Court of the Second Judicial District.
*26Hie appellees interpose a motion to dismiss this appeal for the reasons:—
1. That the decree sought to be corrected is interlocutory and not a final decree, and therefore not thé subject of an appeal.
2. That the dissolution of an injunction is a matter resting entirely in the discretion of the Judge making the order, and therefore not appealable.
In order to understand, and have a just and full appreciation of the questions arising out of this motion, it will be necessary…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Perkins v. Sierra Nevada Silver Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1876
- Williams v. GilbertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Caswell v. ComstockMichigan Supreme Court · 1859