Case Name: AUGUSTUS S. FRANCIS v. LOUIS J. HEBERLE
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1917-03-30
Citations: 136 Minn. 463
Docket Number: Nos. 20,430, 20,431
Parties: AUGUSTUS S. FRANCIS v. LOUIS J. HEBERLE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 463–465

Head Matter:
AUGUSTUS S. FRANCIS v. LOUIS J. HEBERLE.
March 30, 1917.
Nos. 20,430, 20,431.
Order not appealable.
An order permitting plaintiff to prosecute an action to final determination and any of the defendants to serve an answer to the complaint within 20 days after service of the order upon them or their attorney, permitting plaintiff to serve a reply to such answer, and placing the action upon the calendar for trial at the next term of court, is not an appealable order. [Reporter.]
Appeal and error — affirmance of judgment.
Where an appeal is taken from a judgment entered pursuant to findings and order for judgment, no case being settled, and appellant is not entitled to have a case settled, and the only question which could be raised on appeal is whether the findings authorize the judgment, and the findings of fact do in fact authorize the judgment entered, the judgment will be affirmed. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Dakota county. Plaintiff obtained an order to show cause why an order discharging the receiver of the Heberle-Francis Company should not be set aside, the receiver reinstated, and plaintiff permitted to .be heard thereon. The matter was heard before Johnson, J., who made the order quoted in the following opinion. From this order defendant Heberle appealed. Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed by the court on its own motion.
Defendant Heberle also appealed from a judgment entered pursuant to findings and an order for judgment. Respondent moved to affirm the judgment for failure to comply with the statutes and with rules 3 and 11 of the court.
Judgment affirmed.
Harvey O. Sargeant, for appellant.
P. H. O’Keefe, for respondent.
Reported in 161 N. W. 783.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The order appealed from reads: "It is ordered that plaintiff be and hereby is permitted to maintain and prosecute this action to final determination; that any and all of the defendants may serve an answer to the complaint herein within twenty days after the service of this order upon them or their attorney herein; that the plaintiff may serve a reply to such answer if he shall so desire; that this action may be placed upon the calendar of this court for trial at the next general term thereof."
A motion is made to dismiss the appeal. The grounds are not well stated, but the order is so clearly a nonappealable order that the court on its own motion should dismiss the appeal.
It is so ordered.
Pee Cueiam.
The appeal herein was perfected not later than November 13, 1916. No paper book or brief has been served or filed, and respondent moves for an affirmance. Having determined (see opinion on page 465, infra) that appellant is not now entitled to have a case settled and allowed, no question could be raised upon this appeal from the judgment other than the one that the findings of fact do not authorize the judgment. A mere inspection of the findings indicates their sufficiency to support the judgment; it would therefore serve no useful purpose were we to relax the rule and permit further time in which to serve paper book and briefs.
Judgment affirmed.