Case Name: RUTH DORAN v. JOHN A. KENNEDY and Others
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1912-05-24
Citations: 117 Minn. 535
Docket Number: Nos. 17,477—(87)
Parties: RUTH DORAN v. JOHN A. KENNEDY and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
RUTH DORAN v. JOHN A. KENNEDY and Others.
May 24, 1912.
.Nos. 17,477—(87).
Decision not appealable.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law in plaintiff’s favor were filed on September 30. No motion for a new trial was made and no judgment entered. Appeal from the “order” of September 30. Eeld: The order or decision of the trial ■court was not appealable. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Koochiching county to determine adverse claims to certain real estate. The case was submitted upon the pleadings, and the admissions made by both parties in open court, to Stanton, J., who, disregarding the form of plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and determining the action on the merits, made findings and as conclusion of law found that plaintiff was the owner of the premises, but did not add any order for judgment. From the “order” granting motion for judgment on the pleadings, “with the admissions as to the pleadings,” in favor of plaintiff, defendants appealed.
Dismissed.
E. J. MoPartlin, for appellant.
William E. Oulkin and John E. Samuelson, for respondent.
Reported in 136 N. W. 1134.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Action to determine adverse claims to land in Koochiching county. On the trial certain admissions were made, and plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings and admissions. This motion was taken under advisement by the trial court, and on September 30, 1911, findings of fact and conclusions of law in plaintiff's favor were made and filed. No motion for a new trial was made and no judgment entered. This appeal was taken from the "order" of September 30. It is entirely clear that the order or decision of the trial court was not appeal-able. Though no motion was made to dismiss the appeal, and though respondent does not make the point, we must refuse to take jurisdiction, as we are clearly without it.
The appeal is dismissed.