Hoyt v. Kittson County State Bank

• Decision Date: 11 April 1930
• Docket Number: No. 27588.,27588.
• Citation: 180 Minn. 93,230 N.W. 269
• Parties: HOYT v. KITTSON COUNTY STATE BANK.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

230 N.W. 269

180 Minn. 93

HOYT v. KITTSON COUNTY STATE BANK.

No. 27588.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 11, 1930.

Appeal from District Court, Kittson County; Andrew Grindeland, Judge.

Action by Olive M. Hoyt against the Kittson County State Bank. Finding for defendant, and from orders denying a motion in the alternative for amended findings, or for a new trial, and granting the defendant's motion to file a supplemental answer, the plaintiff appeals.

Order denying a new trial affirmed, and appeal otherwise dismissed.

Paul A. Lundgren and Theo. Quale, both of Thief River Falls, for appellant.

Julius J. Olson and Oscar R. Knutson, both of Warren, and A. D. Bornemann, of Hallock, for respondent.

DIBELL, J.

Action by the vendee in a land contract for an accounting and for specific performance. There were findings for the defendant. The plaintiff moved in the alternative for amended findings or a new trial. Her motion was denied. The defendant moved for leave to file a supplemental answer alleging the cancellation of the land contract. The motion was granted. The plaintiff appealed from the order denying her motion to amend the findings and her motion for a new trial, and from the order granting the defendant's motion to file a supplemental answer.

1. The order denying the motion for amended findings is not appealable. Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409, 201 N. W. 617, and cases cited; City of Minneapolis v. Street Ry. Co., 115 Minn. 514, 133 N. W. 80; State v. Probst, 165 Minn. 361, 206 N. W. 642. A ruling upon it might change or otherwise affect the result below or give a ground for an assignment of error in this court, but nothing more. The appeal so far as it was based on a motion for amended findings must be dismissed.

2. The order so far as it denied a new trial is appealable. No ground for a new trial was stated in the motion. No question of law is raised, and the order must be affirmed. Clark v. Nelson Lumber Co., 34 Minn. 289, 25 N. W. 628; Spencer v. Stanley, 74 Minn. 35, 76 N. W. 953.

3. The defendant moved for leave to file a supplemental answer. This motion was granted. The order granting it is not appealable. See Stromme v. Rieck, 110 Minn. 472, 125 N. W. 1021; Hanley v. Board of County Commissioners, 87 Minn. 209, 91 N. W. 756; Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley, 129 Minn. 536, 152 N. W. 653; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2d Ed.) § 309. This appeal must be dismissed.

There is left for trial such issues as may be raised by the...