Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Hawley
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Per curiam
Defendants appeal from an order permitting plaintiff to serve and file a reply to their answer, and insist that, in permitting the service of the reply some months after the expiration of the statutory time, the court abused the discretion conferred upon it by section 7786, G. S. 1913.
An order relieving a party from default and granting him leave to interpose an answer or reply, made after the entry of judgment, is appealable, as such orders cannot be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment. But such orders, made before judgment, are not appealable, for they may be reviewed on an appeal from…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lovering v. Webb Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Stromme v. RieckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- National Albany Exchange Bank v. CargillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Minneapolis Trust Co. v. MenageSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Blied v. BarnardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bredemann v. BredemannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Bergman v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Bolon v. PenningtonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
- In Re Application of BonleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- Bonley v. RickmireSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942