Court Opinion

ID: 9571623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:33:35.16672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:43.487557
License: Public Domain

On Petition por Behearing.
On February 24, 1950, the following opinion was filed:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff petitions for a rehearing upon the ground that, because the judgment is incomplete for the reason that it does not include costs and disbursements, it is not a judgment at all, citing such cases as In re Estate of Colby, 223 Minn. 157, 25 N. W. (2d) 769, and Richardson v. Rogers, 37 Minn. 461, 35 N. W. 270, involving the question whether appeals from incomplete judgments there involved were timely taken.
We pointed out in the opinion filed here that the judgment, even though imperfect, was a judgment. In Cox v. Selover, 177 Minn. 369, 371, 225 N. W. 282, where the question was fully considered, we held that the omission of costs and disbursements is a mere “irregularity,” which in no wise affects “the validity of the judgment.” It follows that, while the judgment here is irregular, it is a valid judgment, and that, because that is true, it precludes an appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer as an intermediate order.
Petition denied.