Works v. Tiber
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 2014, 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.
- In re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward (Minn. 2014)
- Sprenger v. Jacobs (Minn. 1981)
- ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY CO. v. City of St. Paul (Minn. 1960)
- Touhey v. Donovan (Minn. 1960)
- Barnes v. MacKen (Minn. 1958)
- Doyle v. Ries (Minn. 1939)
- Blythe v. Kujawa (Minn. 1929)
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
Action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land by the defendants to one Mott which contract was assigned by Mott to the plaintiff. Upon the motion of the defendants Mott and one Honn were made parties. Honn and the plaintiff appeal separately from the order.
The two appellants filed a cost bond, not a supersedeas. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff and Honn. This was the situation when the appeal was heard.
It was for the plaintiff and Honn, if they desired to stay further proceedings pending the appeal, to file a supersedeas bond. Not de *173 siring to do so they could preserve their rights by proper objections at the trial. If the order were reversed it would not affect the judgment. The only use to the plaintiff and Honn of a determination of this appeal on its merits is its use as a precedent, if favorable to them, on their appeal from the judgment, if they take one. We make precedents only as incident to the determination of actual controversies. The question is in the nature of a moot one. See Ann. Cas. 1918B, 554, 558-560.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.