Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

IN RE ESTATE OF AUGUST PLOETZ. BERTHA OTTING, APPELLANT. Reported in 243 N.W. 383.

Appeal and error — nonappealable order.

An order of the district court dismissing an appeal from probate court is not appealable.

PER CURIAM.

This will contest is here on attempted appeal from an order of the district court, made when the case was there called for trial, dismissing the appeal of Bertha Otting, proponent, to the district court from the order of the probate court denying probate of the supposed will.

Under the statute, G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 8988, the appeal from the probate court to the district court stood for trial de novo in the latter tribunal. The mere order of dismissal there was not appealable. Graham v. Conrad, 66 Minn. 470, 69 N.W. 215; Thompson v. Berg, 151 Minn. 560, 187 N.W. 703. If appellant wanted review here of that decision, our procedure required either a motion for a new trial or the entry of judgment of dismissal. In the one case an appeal could be taken from the order denying a new trial, and in the other from the judgment.

Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted.

So ordered.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE ESTATE OF PLOETZ
(Jun 24, 1932)