Case Name: Timothy Ryan vs. N. F. H. Kranz and others
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1879-01-10
Citations: 25 Minn. 362
Docket Number: 
Parties: Timothy Ryan vs. N. F. H. Kranz and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 362–362

Head Matter:
Timothy Ryan vs. N. F. H. Kranz and others.
January 10, 1879.
Order for Judgment is not Appealable. — In this case the court below finds* as conclusions of law, “ that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment against the plaintiff for his costs and disbursements,” adding the words: “Let judgment be-entered accordingly.” Held, that these words are not an order involving the merits, or any part thereof, but a mere direction t-h^t an act be-done which does involve the merits, to wit, that judgment be entered. Such direction is not appealable.
A. R. Capehart, for appellant.
Clagett <£ Searles, for respondents.

Opinion:
Berry, J.
This case was tried by the district court without a jury. As conclusions of law, the court finds "that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment against the plaintiff for his costs and disbursements, " adding the words: "Let judgment be entered accordingly." This direction is a part of the "decision" of the court, within the evident meaning of Gen. St. c. 66, § 226.. It is not an order involving the merits, or any part thereof,, within the meaning of Gen. St. c. 86, § 8, subd. 3, relating-to appeals in civil actions. It is merely a direction that an act be done which does involve the merits, to wit, that judgment be entered. It is, therefore, not appealable. Von Glahn v. Sommer, 11 Minn. 132 (203;) Lamb v. McCanna, 14 Minn. 513; Searles v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 320.
Appeal dismissed.