Case ID: minn_166/html/0283-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ELLA BRUNN v. HAROLD BRUNN.
    
    February 26, 1926.
    No. 25,365.
    Order denying monetary relief pending action for divorce is appealable.
    1. Order in a divorce action denying an allowance to the wife for suit money, attorney’s fees and temporary alimony is appealable as one denying a provisional remedy.
    Order concerning custody of children pending trial, is not appealable.
    2. An order concerning the custody of minor children, pendente lite, is not appealable.
    Divorce, 19 C. J. pp. 325 n. 16y2; 326 n. 27 New; 360 n. 19.
    Action in the' district court for Faribault county for divorce. The court, Haycraft, J., entered an order denying plaintiff’s application for suit money, attorneys’ fees and alimony during the pendency of the action and giving her custody of certain of the children and respondent of the other. Plaintiff appealed.
    Appeal dismissed except as to the portion of the order denying motion for monetary relief pendente lite.
    
      Moonrn & Moonan, for plaintiff.
    
      Gallagher, Madden & Gallagher, for defendant.
    
      
       Reported in 207 N. W. 616.
    
   Per Curiam.

Action for divorce here on plaintiff’s appeal from an order, the nature of which will appear later. The present opinion follows the return made by appellant to an order, made by the court on its own motion, to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.

The case has not been tried on the merits. The order sought to be reviewed by this appeal denied plaintiff’s application for suit money, attorney’s fees and alimony during the pendency of the action; gave her the custody of one of the two minor children and defendant the custody of the other during the pendency of the action; and dissolved a previous order restraining defendant from in any way- interfering with plaintiff or her children or from disposing of any of his property.

Insofar as the order denies the application for monetary relief pending the action, it denies a “provisional remedy” and so it is appealable under G. S. 1923, ,§ 9498, subd. 2. Schuster v. Schuster, 84 Minn. 403, 87 N. W. 1014. Otherwise the order is not appealable for it is not final, does not involve the merits of the action, or deny to either party, even temporarily, an absolute right. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed except as to the order denying plaintiff’s motion for monetary relief pendente lite.

So ordered.