Case Name: A. L. GULBRO, Appellant, v. VAL ROBERTS, Respondent
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1919-11-03
Citations: 43 N.D. 455
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. L. GULBRO, Appellant, v. VAL ROBERTS, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 455–460

Head Matter:
A. L. GULBRO, Appellant, v. VAL ROBERTS, Respondent.
(175 N. W. 616.)
Appeal and error — appeal does not lie from order denying jury trial until after trial of equitable issue.
This case present's an appeal from an order denying plaintiff a jury trial only after the trial of equitable issue presented by the answer.
Held that the order does not in any way determine the merit of the action or prevent a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.
Appeal dismissed.
Opinion filed November 3, 1919.
Rehearing denied November 25, 1919.
Appeal from District Court of Nelson County, Robinson, J.
Flynn <& Traynor, for appellant.
When the plaintiff in the case at bar conceded the equitable issue involved, if there was an equitable issue involved, the plaintiff was then entitled to a jury trial. Lehman v. Coulter (N. D.) 168 N. W. 724; Tinker v. Farmers State Bank (Iowa) 160 N. W. 349; N. D. Comp. Laws 1913, § 7608; N. D. Const. § 7.
R. J. Roberts (Engerud, Rivet, Holt, & Frame of counsel), fox-respondent.
This is an interlocutory ox*der, aixd consequently is not appealable unless an appeal is provided for by the statute either expressly or by necessax-y implication. Patterson v. Ward, 6 N. D. 359; Bolton v. Donovan, 9 N. D. 575; Stimson v. Stimson, 30 N. D. 78.
The final order for judgment in an action is not appealable. Be Weber, 4 N. D. 132; Persons v. Himmons, 1 N. D. 244; Streeker v. Bailson, 19 N. D. 677.
The same kind of an order in a special proceeding is appealable. Oliver v. Wilson, 8 N. D. 593; State ex rel. v. Meyers, 19 N. D. 805; Dow v. Lillie, 26 N. D. 512; Streeker v. Bailson, 19 N. D. 677; Whitney v. Bitz, 24 N. D. 576.
When an equitable defense is presented it is to be decided by the court as if it were an equitable proceeding, before other issues are determined, because the determining of the equitable issues in favor of the defendant would put an end to the litigation, and obviate the necessity of tx-ying the legal issues involved. Arnett v. Smith, 11 N. D. 55; Cotton v. Butterfield, 14 N. D. 465; Thayer v. White, 3 Cal. 228; Argnello v. Edingei-, 10 Cal. 160; Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 272; Weber v. Marshall, 19 Cal. 457; Martin v. Zellenbaeh, 38 Cal. 310 (see opinion on rehearing at p. 319); Fish v. Benson (Cal.) 2 Pae. 457; Kimball v. McIntyre (Utah) 1 Pac. 168; Hotaling v. Bank (Neb.) 75 N. W. 243; Dupont v. Davis, 35 Wis. 639; So. End Min. Co. v. Finney (Nev.) 35 Pac. 89; Petty v. Malier, 54 Ky. 591; Sheeful v. Murty, 30 Ohio St. 50; Max-tin v. Turnbaugh (Mo.) 54 S. W. 515.
»In some states the rule is established by statute. Deloy v. Chapmen, 2 Ox-. 245; Thomas v. Bronx Bealty Co. 70 N. Y. Supp. 206.
In some states the order of trial is in the discretion of the court. Crosby v. Lumber Co. (Minn.) 101 N. W. 610; McOreery & Co. v. Myers (S. 0.) 49 S. E. 848; Tinker v. Bank (Iowa) 160 N. W. 349; Thatcher v. Stickney Bros. (Iowa) 55 N. W. 488.
The right to an attachment or the ground for it or the validity of the levy or the right to the property levied on are not involved in the trial of the action in any way. Sobolisk v. Jacobsen, 6 N. D. 175; Jewett Bros. v. Hoffman, 14 N. D. 115.

Opinion:
Bobinson, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying plaintiff a jury trial without first trying the equitable issues presented by the counterclaim. The statute gives the right to appeal from an order affecting a substantial right made in an action when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken. Comp. Laws, § 7841, subd. 1. Manifestly the order in question does not in any way determine the action or prevent a judgment from which an appeal might be taken. If the order was erroneous the proper cóurse was for the plaintiff to submit to it, — reserving an objection, — and then to appeal from a judgment, if it should be against him. Were it permissible to appeal from orders regarding the procedure, there would be no end to litigation.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.