State v. Vick
| Decision Date | 20 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 6093.,6093. |
| Parties | STATE v. VICK et al. (VALLEY CITY, Intervener). |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. No appeal lies from an order of the district court denying a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order made by a justice of the peace in a proceeding under section 2516, Comp. Laws 1913.
2. An order of the district court denying a motion to vacate an order staying the enforcement of an order entered by a justice of the peace for the removal of a person likely to become a public charge from one poor relief district to another is not appealable.
Appeal from District Court, Burke County; Moellring, Judge.
Proceedings by the State, on the complaint of an overseer of the poor in the City of Columbus, in Burke County, against Herman Vick and others. The justice of the peace made an order for the removal of the defendants to Valley City, and the overseer of the poor of that city caused an appeal to be taken to the district court, and Valley City was permitted to intervene. From an order denying the motion of the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the decision of the justice of the peace, and denying a motion to vacate the order staying the enforcement of the order of removal, the plaintiff appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
B. L. Wilson, of Bowbells, for appellant.
Earl Walter, of Bowbells, for intervener respondent.
This appeal involves a controversy as regards the legal residence of one Herman Vick and his family within the purview of the laws relating to poor relief. The case originated in a justice's court upon the complaint of an overseer of the poor in the city of Columbus in Burke county. The justice of the peace made an order for the removal of said Herman Vick and his family from the city of Columbus in Burke county to the city of Valley City in the county of Barnes. The authorities of Valley City caused an appeal to be taken from the decision of the justice of the peace. Application was also made to the district court for permission to intervene, which application was granted. Valley City also applied for an order of the district court to prevent or stay the enforcement of the order of the justice of the peace directing the removal of Herman Vick and his family pending the appeal, which application was granted. Thereafter the plaintiff moved the district court that the appeal taken by the overseer of the poor of Valley City from the decision of the justice of the peace be dismissed, and that the order staying the enforcement of the order of removal be vacated. Both motions were denied, and the plaintiff has appealed.
At the threshold of the case in this court we are met with a motion by the respondent to dismiss plaintiff's appeal on the ground that the orders sought to be reviewed are non-appealable. The motion to dismiss the appeals must be granted. The statute (section 7841, Comp. Laws 1913) provides:
“The following orders when made by the court may be carried to the supreme court:
1. An order affecting a substantial right made in any action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.
2. A final order affecting a substantial right made in special proceedings or upon a summary application in an action after judgment.
3. When an order grants, refuses, continues or modifies a provisional remedy, or grants, refuses, modifies or dissolves an injunction or refuses to modify or dissolve an injunction, whether such injunction was issued in an action or special proceeding or pursuant to the provisions of section 8074 of this code; when it sets aside or dismisses a writ of attachment for irregularity; when it grants or refuses a new trial or when it sustains or overrules a demurrer.
4. When it involves the merits of an action or some part thereof; when it orders judgment on application therefor on account of the frivolousness of a dem...
To continue reading
Request your trial