Case ID: minn_129/html/0300-01.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

STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 74 OF LINCOLN COUNTY and Others v. COUNTY OF LINCOLN and Others.
    
    May 7, 1915.
    Nos. 19,193-(85).
    Order not appealable.
    'An order of the district court denying a motion to dismiss certiorari proceedings instituted to review the action of the board of county commissioners in apportioning school funds under section 2696, G. S. 1913, is not appealable. Such an order does not involve the merits of the proceeding, nor prevent a hearing or judgment upon the merits.
    Upon the relation of Common School District No. 74 and the officers of that district, the district court for Lincoln county granted its writ of certiorari to review the decision of the board of county commissioners of that county apportioning school funds between the respective districts within the county. From an order denying their motion to dismiss the writ, Olsen, J., respondents appealed.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      Louis P. Johnson, for respondents.
    
      Johnson & Lende, for relators.
    
      
       Reported in 152 N. W. 541.
    
   Per Curiam.

A writ of certiorari was issued out of the district court of Lincoln county to review the decision of the board of county commissioners in apportioning school funds under the provisions of section 2696, Gr. S. 1913. Respondents moved the district court under section 8317, Gr. S. 1913, to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the writ was not sued out within the time limited by section 8313. The motion was submitted upon conflicting affidavits and was denied. Respondents appealed from the order so denying the motion.

The order is not a final order which prevents a judgment, nor does it involve the merits of the proceeding. It is therefore not appealable. Rabitte v. Nathan, 22 Minn. 266; Minnesota Central R. Co. v. Peterson, 31 Minn. 42, 16 N. W. 456; Pillsbury v. Foley, 61 Minn. 434, 63 N. W. 1027. The situation would be different had the motion to dismiss been granted. In such case the proceeding would have been ended, and a hearing or judgment on the merits presented. Minnesota Central R. Co. v. Peterson, supra. The case of Moede v. County of Stearns, 43 Minn. 312, 45 N. W. 435, is not in point. That was an appeal from a judgment rendered on the merits.

Appeal dismissed.