Court Opinion

ID: 9736048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:41:46.545897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.597759
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
MURRAY, Judge.
Plaintiffs and appellants have petitioned this court for rehearing only with respect to that part of the opinion in the above entitled action, wherein the court stated as follows (with respect to the order denying motion to vacate order appointing special master) :
“Of the three orders above listed, the first we find it unnecessary to deal with.”
The petitioning counsel is correct to the extent that this court should have included reasons for stating that it was unnecessary to deal with this point.
The order denying the motion to vacate order appointing special master need not be dealt with, for the specific reason that this is an interlocutory matter, does not dispose of the action on its merits, and, hence, is not appealable.
Counsel contends that there is finality to this order because the compensation of the master is in question. However, actually this question will not be dealt with finally until the district court below renders its final decision on the merits, in which case the compensation of the master would be a question to be raised, respecting the taxation of costs.
Although it is probably unnecessary to cite authority on the question of appealability of interlocutory orders, we cite the following: Swiggum v. Valley Inv. Co., 73 N.D. 422, 15 N.W.2d 862, motion denied 74 N.D. 156, 19 N.W.2d 857; Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 74 N.D. 154, 20 N.W.2d 343.
Accordingly, petition for rehearing is denied.
TEIGEN, C. J., and STRUTZ, ERICK-STAD and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.