Peterson v. Hutchinson
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 1912, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Desaman v. Butler Bros. (Minn. 1912)
- First National Bank v. Towle (Minn. 1912)
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 action was brought to recover the value of certain household goods belonging to the plaintiff, which, it was alleged, the defendant had converted to his own use. After a trial by the court without a jury, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to this court from an order denying his motion to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
An examination of the record fails to disclose any reversible error. But an order denying a motion to amend findings is not appealable. Rogers v. Hedemark, 70 Minn. 441, 73 N. W. 252; Wheadon v. Mead, 71 Minn. 322, 73 N. W. 975; Savings Bank of St. Paul v. St. Paul Plow Co., 76 Minn. 7, 78 N. W. 873; Lamprey v. St. Paul & C. Ry. Co., 86 Minn. 509, 91 N. W. 29.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.