Case Name: UNION BROKERAGE COMPANY, North Dakota Corporation, Respondent, v. NORMAN JENSEN, Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1945-10-23
Citations: 74 N.D. 154
Docket Number: File No. 6985
Parties: UNION BROKERAGE COMPANY, North Dakota Corporation, Respondent, v. NORMAN JENSEN, Appellant.
Judges: ChristiaNSON, Ch. J., and Morris, Burke, Nuessle and Burr, J\T., concur.
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
[File No. 6985]
UNION BROKERAGE COMPANY, North Dakota Corporation, Respondent, v. NORMAN JENSEN, Appellant.
(20 NW2d 343)
Opinion filed October 23, 1945
L. J. Falda, Jr., and Ordner T. Bundlie, fór appellant.
Earl Walter and Leonard Eriksson, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an action for damages. The defendant did not answer or demur, but moved for a dismissal of the action on the grounds that "the plaintiff has no authority, capacity, or legal right to sue, prosecute, and maintain" the action; that the plaintiff for more than one year preceding the commencement of the action has not been conducting its usual and corporate business in the state as required by law; that for more than one year preceding the commencement of the action the plaintiff failed and neglected to keep and maintain a public office at any place within North Dakota for the transaction of its corporate business; and that for more than one year preceding the commencement of the action plaintiff failed to execute and file with the Secretary of State an instrument in writing-constituting and appointing said Secretary of State or his successor as its true and lawful agent and attorney upon whom process may be served. Certain affidavits were submitted in support of said motion. The motion was brought on for hearing pursuant to notice. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant has appealed. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among others, .that the order is not appealable.
The motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted. Appeals from interlocutory orders will lie only in the cases authorized by the statute. Stimson v. Stimson, 30 ND 78, 152 NW 132; Ostlund v. Ecklund, 42 ND 83, 171 NW 857. This court has repeatedly held that under the statute of this state (ND Rev Code 1943, § 28-2702; Comp Laws 1913, § 7841) an appeal does not lie either from an order dismissing an action (Re Weber, 4 ND 119, 59 NW 523, 23 LRA 621; Field v. Great Western Elevator Co. 5 ND 400, 67 NW 147; Lough v. White, 13 ND 387, 100 NW 1084; Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 ND 124, 77 NW 1016; Hanberg v. National Bank, 8 ND 328, 79 NW 336; Larson v. Walker, 17 ND 247, 115 NW 838; Dibble v. Hanson, 17 ND 21, 114 NW 371, 16 Ann Cas 1210; Malherek v. Fargo, 49 ND 123, 190 NW 176; Grain Growers' Grain Co. v. Michigan, 52 ND 785, 204 NW 838), or from an order denying a motion to dismiss an action. Strecker v. Railson, 19 ND 677, 125 NW 560; John Miller Co. v. Minckler, 30 ND 360, 152 NW 664; Security Nat. Bank v. Bothne, 56 ND 269, 217 NW 148. See, also, Ellingson v. Northwestern Jobbers Credit Bureau, 58 ND 754, 227 NW 360; Wall v. First Nat. Bank, 49 ND 703, 193 NW 51; Torgerson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 51 ND 745, 200 NW 1013; Bowen v. Montana L. Ins. Co. 49 ND 140, 190 NW 314; Baird v. Lefor, 52 ND 155, 201 NW 997, 38 ALR 807; Warren v. Slaybaugh, 58 ND 904, 228 NW 416; Burdick v. Mann, 59 ND 611, 231 NW 545; McKivergin v. Atwood, 63 ND 73, 246 NW 41.
Appeal dismissed.
ChristiaNSON, Ch. J., and Morris, Burke, Nuessle and Burr, J\T., concur.