Court Opinion

ID: 9827215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:17:41.711291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:26.675621
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] We think the two remedies, an appeal from an order issued in chambers granting an injunction, and an appeal from a judgment overruling a motion to dissolve the injunction theretofore granted, are inconsistent remedies. In the first instance only the sufficiency of the petition is to be determined, while in the second the petition, the answer, and the evidence heard are before the trial court and the appellate court. The fact that the end sought is the same in both instances does not make the means by which that end is to be reached consistent. Where one has the right to appeal to one of two courts, by an appeal to one he ir*687revocably elects to pursue Ms remedy there, and cannot afterwards appeal to the other. 9 R. C. L. p. 961; Meld v. Elevator Co., 6 N. D. 424, 71 N. W. 135, 66 Am. St. Rep. 611. So we think that a litigant, who has the choice of appealing from a peremptory order of the court, in a proceeding in which he was not present and had no opportunity to be heard or to introduce evidence, and elects rather to file his answer and go into the evidence, cannot, after an unfavorable judgment upon such hearing, go back and appeal -from the first order.