County of Renville v. City of Minneapolis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $836.45 for expenses alleged to have been incurred in the care of a certain pauper. The answer denied that defendant was indebted in any sum whatever to plaintiff for the care of the pauper. From an order, Holt, J., granting defendant’s motion for judgment in its favor upon the pleadings and directing that judgment be entered in favor of defendant, plaintiff appealed.
1Per curiam
This is an appeal from an order directing judgment upon the pleadings in defendant’s favor. The order is not appealable, and this court is therefore without jurisdiction. We could not enter upon a consideration of the merits of this case without overruling a well-established rule, as shown by a long line of decisions of this court. Lamb v. McCanna, 14 Minn. 385 (513) ; Rogers v. Holyoke, 14 Minn. 387 (514); Hodgins v. Heaney, 15 Minn. 142 (185); Lockwood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 73, 48 N. W. 458. In U. S. S. L. & B. Co. v. Ahrens, 50 Minn. 332, 52 N. W. 898, it was said: “The point is not made by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cochran v. ToherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- Dawson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
- Lockwood v. BockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Gottstein v. St. JeanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- United States Savings, Loan & Building Co. v. AhrensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by5 opinions
- Shema v. Thorpe Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Lowe v. NixonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Holliston v. ErnstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Supornick v. National Council of Knights & Ladies of SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- Arnoldy v. Northwestern State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919