Works v. Tiber
| Decision Date | 19 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25485.,Nos. 25484,s. 25484 |
| Parties | WORKS v. TIBER et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; T. H. Salmon, Judge.
Action by Robert M. Works against Leon J. Tiber and others for specific performance. From an order adding certain parties, plaintiff and another appeal separately. Appeal dismissed.
Upon the application of the defendants a party was added. The plaintiff and such party appealed, but did not file a supersedeas bond. The action proceeded to trial and resulted in judgment for the defendants against the plaintiff and the added party. This was the situation when the appeal was heard. The question presented is in the nature of a moot one, and the appeal is dismissed. Frank W. Booth, of Minneapolis, for appellants.
Brill & Maslon and Robert S. Kolliner, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land by the defendants to one Mott which contract was assigned by Mott to the plaintiff. Upon the motion of the defendants, Mott and one Honn were made parties. Honn and the plaintiff appeal separately from the order.
The two appellants filed a cost bond, not a supersedeas. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff and Honn. This was the situation when the appeal was heard.
It was for the plaintiff and Honn, if they desired to stay further proceedings pending the appeal, to file a supersedeas bond. Not desiring to do so, they could preserve their rights by proper objections at the trial. If the order were reversed, it would not affect the judgment. The only use to the plaintiff and Honn of a determination of this appeal on its merits is its use as a precedent, if favorable to them, on their appeal from the judgment, if they take one. We make precedents only as incident to the determination of actual controversies. The question is in the nature of a moot one. See Ann. Cas. 1918B, 554, 558-560.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Guardianship of Tschumy
...203 N.W.2d at 366. Rather, “[w]e make precedents only as incident to the determination of actual controversies.” Works v. Tiber, 169 Minn. 172, 173, 210 N.W. 877, 878 (1926). As we recognized in 1865, only 8 years after Minnesota became a state, requiring judges to decide legal questions in......
-
Barnes v. Macken
...present condition of this action renders it a moot case and not a real controversy. 4. As was said by this court in Works v. Tiber, 169 Minn. 172, 173, 210 N.W. 877, 878: 'We make precedents only as incident to the determination of actual controversies'; in Doyle v. Ries, 205 Minn. 82, 84, ......
- Blythe v. Kujawa
-
Blythe v. Kujawa
...district court preventing the entry of judgment. G. S. 1923, § 9500; Scofield v. Scheaffer, 104 Minn. 127, 116 N. W. 211; Works v. Tiber, 169 Minn. 172, 210 N. W. 877. 2. The contract for deed gave to both parties, to plaintiff as vendee and to defendants as vendors, the right to specific p......