Hine v. Myrick
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1949, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Chichester v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham (Ala. 1941)
- Fox v. Swartz (Minn. 1949)
- Iversen v. Docon (7th Cir. 1936)
- Garden City Feeder Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. (8th Cir. 1935)
- In re Seward (Minn. 1923)
- Burkleo v. Town Board (Minn. 1909)
- Commonwealth v. Soderquest (Mass. 1903)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This cause having-come on for trial of the issues of fact arising upon the pleadings, the court, on motion of defendant, ordered judgment in his favor on the pleadings, on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action. Subsequently the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which the court denied. This appeal is from the order refusing a new trial.
The defendant, upon the authority of Dodge v. Bell, 37 Minn. 382, 34 N. W. 739, moves that the appeal be dismissed on the ground that the order is not appealable. The order appealed from in Dodge v. Bell was an order denying a motion to vacate an order sustaining a demurrer, and it was there held that a “new trial,” when used in the statute, means, as at common law, a retrial of issues of fact. But it has always been held by this court that when a cause is called for the trial of issues of fact any order or ruling thereafter made by the court, which it is claimed prevented a party from having a fair trial of those issues, such as dismissing the' action or ordering judgment on the pleadings, constitutes a good ground for a motion for a new trial. Thorp v. Lorenz, 34 Minn. 350, 25 N. W. 712; Dunham v. Byrnes, 36 Minn. 106, 30 N. W. 402. Whether this rule is strictly logical or not, it is at least a very convenient one, and has been too long recognized by this court as good practice to be now changed.
The ground upon which the trial court held the complaint insufficient was that a covenant by the grantee of mortgaged premises to pay the mortgage without any mention of the debt thereby secured did not amount to a covenant to pay the debt. Watson v. Smith, supra, p. 206, 62 N. W. 265, is, in principle, decisive of this point. How a mortgage can be paid without paying the debt secured by it, it is impossible to conceive. The term “mortgage” was evidently-used in its ordinary popular sense, as referring to the debt itself.
Order reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.