Kells v. Nelson-Tenney Lumber Co.
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 1953, 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
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Thayer v. Duffy (Minn. 1953)
- In re Order of Superintendent of Schools, Nobles County (Minn. 1953)
- City of Minneapolis v. Norman (Minn. 1953)
- Peterson v. Joint Independent Consolidated School District No. 116 (Minn. 1953)
- Henderson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Minn. 1950)
- State Ex Rel. Spurck v. Civil Service Board (Minn. 1948)
- Larson v. Le Mere (Minn. 1945)
- Long v. Ryan (Minn. 1938)
- In re Estate of Dahmen (Minn. 1937)
- Dahmen v. Simmons (Minn. 1937)
- In re Estate of Nelson (Minn. 1935)
- First National Bank v. Converse Rubber Co. (Minn. 1935)
- Rendahl v. Hall (Minn. 1924)
- Thwing v. McDonald (Minn. 1918)
- Breen v. Cameron (Minn. 1916)
- State ex rel. Gergen v. Flaherty (Minn. 1906)
- State ex rel. City of Duluth v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. (Minn. 1906)
- Weiland v. Northwestern Distilleries, Inc. (Minn. 1938)
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
The assignee herein entered into a written contract with the Brainerd Lumber Company, whereby he sold to.it, subject to confirmation by the court, certain pine land belonging to the trust estate. He made a written report thereof, to which was attached a copy of the contract, to the court, which made an order that creditors show cause why the sale should not be confirmed. The appellant appeared, and opposed the confirmation; but the court made its order confirming the sale, from which the appellant appealed, serving the notice thereof on the assignee, but not upon the purchaser. This is a motion to dismiss the appeal, because the purchaser was not made a party to the appeal.
G. S. 1894, § 6134, provides that an appeal shall be made by service of a notice in writing on the adverse party and the clerk of court. While an appeal is the continuation of the original action or proceeding in another jurisdiction, yet it is analogous in many respects to a writ of error, which is regarded as the beginning of a new action; and this court will consider only questions between the
The adverse party, within the intent of the statute, means the party whose interest in relation to the subject of the appeal is in direct conflict with a reversal or modification of the order or judgment appealed from. Thompson v. Ellsworth, 1 Barb. Ch. 624; Senter v. Castro, 38 Cal. 637; Williams v. Santa Clara, 66 Cal. 193, 5 Pac. 85. The subject-matter of this appeal is the sale of the land to the purchaser, the Brainerd Lumber Company. When the district court confirmed the sale, all of the conditions of the sale had been complied with, and it became absolute. The appellant, a creditor, seeks by this appeal a reversal of the order, whereby the sale would be set aside, and the purchaser lose his bargain. Its interest is in direct conflict with a reversal of the order, and therefore it is, as to the creditor, an adverse party. Indeed, the purchaser is practically the only adverse party, for the assignee represents all of the creditors, including the appellant. He does not represent the purchaser. Their relation is that of vendor and vendee, holding each other at arm’s length.
It may be suggested that the purchaser is not a party of record. The parties to the record are not always necessary parties to the appeal, nor are those who were not parties to the record, as originally made, to be overlooked in prosecuting an appeal. Elliott, App. Proc. § 153. It has accordingly been held that, on an appeal
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.