Court Opinion

ID: 9671912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:45:12.533665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.964935
License: Public Domain

Upon Petition for Rehearing.
On February 19, 1954, the following opinion was filed:
Per Curiam.
Our attention has been directed to the fact that no notice of the appeal herein was served upon plaintiff receiver or upon Nick Kirchansky and Jo-Ann Realty Corporation, respective purchasers of the partnership assets at two court sales ordered February 27, 1952, and confirmed August 21, 1951, and January 29, 1952.
Under M. S. A. 605.03, whenever the judgment or order appealed from is indivisible so that it must be affirmed, modified, or reversed as to all parties, notice of appeal therefrom must be given to every *255party whose interest in the subject of the appeal is in direct conflict with an affirmance, reversal, or modification of the judgment or order appealed from. Henderson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 231 Minn. 503, 43 N. W. (2d) 786; Long v. Ryan, 203 Minn. 332, 281 N. W. 75; Thwing v. McDonald, 139 Minn. 157, 165 N. W. 1065; Kells v. Nelson-Tenney Lbr. Co. 74 Minn. 8, 76 N. W. 790. Based thereon, it has been held that the purchaser at a sale which is made subject to court approval is a necessary and adverse party to an appeal from the order confirming the sale. In re Sale of Land to Prudential Ins. Co. 238 Minn. 497, 57 N. W. (2d) 245; Kells v. Nelson-Tenney Lbr. Co. supra.
Conversely it also appears settled that, when an adverse party has not been served with notice of appeal from a judgment or order which is divisible, the appeal need not be dismissed but our consideration thereof will be limited to issues between appellant and the parties properly served with such notice. Breen v. Cameron, 132 Minn. 357, 157 N. W. 500; Frost v. St. Paul Bank. & Inv. Co. 57 Minn. 325, 59 N. W. 308.
Eeference to our opinion clearly manifests that both the judgment and order from which the present appeal is taken are divisible. It follows that the appeal should not be dismissed as to the issues between appellant and parties properly served with notice thereof. As to plaintiff, there should be no relitigation of the issues which gave rise to his judgment. As to the purchasers at the court sales, the property rights acquired by them at such sales cannot be invalidated.
In both the original and amended findings plaintiff obtained an order for judgment in the amount of $25,000 against the estate of George A. Mooreside. As counsel for appellants states, they “do not now dispute, nor have they raised by appeal the judgment creditor interest of the plaintiff in decedent’s estate.” Should a new trial again result in a determination that a partnership existed between Mooreside and Winsor and Carlson, plaintiff would remain in his present position. Should it result in a determination that no partnership existed, his lien would then extend to all assets *256of the business and the measure of security for his judgment would increase accordingly. It would appear, therefore, that with this limitation no harm will result to him by retrial of the other issues. The failure to serve him with notice of the appeal, therefore, does not constitute grounds for its dismissal.
The present appeal is not from the orders confirming the sale of the partnership assets either to Nick Kirchansky or to Jo-Ann Realty Corporation and hence is distinguishable from the appeals in In re Sale of Land to Prudential Ins. Co. 238 Minn. 497, 57 N. W. (2d) 245, and Kells v. Nelson-Tenney Lbr. Co. 74 Minn. 8, 76 N. W. 790. The issues presented for determination here do not relate to the sale or the order confirming it. As counsel for appellants state: “* * * the issue of the validity of the sale is not being litigated.” There is no attempt to recover the property sold on the ground that the sale thereof was wrongful. The purchasers continue to hold valid title to the properties purchased by them, and their rights therein are not affected by any modification or redetermination of the issues which might result from a new trial. If it should be determined therein that no partnership existed, appellant’s rights would extend to the proceeds of such sales rather than to the properties sold thereat. It follows that failure to serve notice of appeal upon such purchasers did not limit our jurisdiction to determine other issues presented in the appeal nor serve as the basis for its dismissal.
Our previous opinion and order for a new trial is limited in accordance with the foregoing; the petition for reargument and motions to dismiss the appeal are in all respects denied.
Mr. Justice Nelson, not having been a member of the court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.