Van Zandt v. S. H. Wood Produce Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by the defendant, the S. H. Wood Produce Company, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, 'Thomas 'Canty, J., made December 30, 1892, directing it to file a more specific bill of particulars.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendant, the S. H. Wood Produce Company, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, 'Thomas 'Canty, J., made December 30, 1892, directing it to file a more specific bill of particulars. The plaintiff, E. E. Van Zandt, of Wahpeton, N. Dak., by her •complaint alleged that between April 6, and June 11, 1892, she ■advanced to the defendant over $650 upon the agreement that defendant should act as her broker and buy and sell grain and provisions for her, at such times and where, and as often as plaintiff anight direct. Pursuant to this employment defendant purchased…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
After the answer had been put in, to which was appended a bill of particulars of the matters set forth in the •answer, the court, on motion of the plaintiff, made an order requiring the defendant to file a further bill of particulars stating other facts concerning the matters specified in the former bill. This is an appeal by the defendant from that order. We regard the order as not appealable. Perhaps the decision in Pugh v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 29 Minn. 390, (13 N. W. Rep. 189,) may lend some support to the contrary conclusion, but we do not think that the rule of -appealability as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pugh v. Winona & St. Peter RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
3Cited by3 opinions
- American Book Co. v. Kingdom Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Warfield v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
- Morford v. PyleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927