Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley
Supreme Court of Minnesota
From an order of the district court for Crow Wing county, MeClenahan, J., denying its motion to file an amended and supplemental complaint, plaintiff appealed.
1Per curiam
Upon a former appeal in this ease a new trial was granted. Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley, 124 Minn. 183, 144 N. W. 768. After the case had been remanded, plaintiff made an application to file an amended and supplemental complaint. This application was denied by the trial court, and plaintiff appealed from the order denying it. It is well settled that such an order, made before judgment, is not appealable. Hanley v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Cass County, 87 Minn. 209, 91 N. W. 756; Stromme v. Rieck, 110 Minn. 472, 125 N. W. 1021.
It follows that the appeal must be dismissed. So ordered.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stromme v. RieckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Hanley v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hoyt v. Kittson County State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Swanson v. AlworthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Blied v. BarnardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Burkholder v. BurkholderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Chicago Great Western Railroad v. ZahnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.