Case Name: Luke Hulett v. Halsey M. Matteson
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1867-01
Citations: 12 Minn. 349
Docket Number: 
Parties: Luke Hulett v. Halsey M. Matteson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
Luke Hulett v. Halsey M. Matteson.
Held: that an1 appeal cannot be taken from a ruling, or order of a court, admitting or excluding evidence during the trial of a cause ; such rulings can only be reviewed in this court on an appeal from the judgment, or from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
This action was commenced in the District Court for Eice county ; during the progress of the trial the defendant offered certain testimony to establish a second and third defense set up in his answer; the plaintiff objected to its reception, and his objections were sustained by the court. The defendant then moved that he be allowed to introduce testimony to prove the allegations in said second and third defense; the motion was denied by the court, and the defendant excepted. The defendant then gave notice of appeal from such ruling or order, and filed the bond required by Section 10, chap. 86 of the General Statutes, and insisted that the appeal taken, operated as a stay of all proceedings in that court during the pendency of the appeal. The trial proceeded under objection by defendant who took no further part therein. After verdict for plaintiff, defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, and judgment entered for plaintiff. No further or other appeal was taken. The plaintiff moves in this court that the appeal be dismissed.
Batohelder & Buokham, for Appellant.
Perkins & Mott and Cole & Case, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court
Wilson, Oh. J.
In the course of the trial of this canse in the court below, the defendant offered evidence to establish the second and third defense in his answer, which was excluded by the court; he thereupon gave notice of an appeal from such ruling or order, and filed his bond as required by law to perfect an appeal, and insisted that such appeal stayed all further proceedings in the case, in that court, during its pendency.
The court, notwithstanding, proceeded with the trial, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied. It does not appear that an appeal was taken from the judgment, or from the order denying the motion for a new trial. The plaintiff urges a preliminary objection, that an appeal is not allowed from a ruling or order of a court, admitting or excluding evidence, during the trial of a cause. The objection is clearly well taken. The orders from which the statute allows an appeal, are, in their effect, in the nature of a final judgment in the action, or on some question or point involved in it, and do not include rulings or intermediate orders made in the progress of the trial. The fact that the defendant made a formal motion tMt the evidence be admitted, does not affect the question. To allow an appeal in such cases would make the delay and expenses of litigation intolerable. The rulings of the court during the progress of the trial can only be reviewed in this court, on an appeal from the judgment, or from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The other, questions in the case are not before us.
Appeal dismissed.