Elliott v. Retail Hardware Mutual Fire Insurance
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 1963, 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
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Sax (Minn. 1950)
- Reub's Minot Camera, Inc. v. General Electric Credit Corp. (N.D. 1972)
- In RE CONDEMNATION BY OAK CENTER CREAMERY CO. v. Grobe (Minn. 1963)
- State Ex Rel. Farrington v. Rigg (Minn. 1956)
- Ullman v. Lutz (Minn. 1952)
- Backstrom v. New York Life Insurance Co. (Minn. 1932)
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
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying a new trial. The findings and order for judgment were made July 29, 1926. Plaintiff’s motion for amended findings or new trial was denied by an order of August 27,1927. That year of delay was but a beginning. Notice of the filing of the order was given and service admitted September 7, 1927. The notice, with the proof of service, was not part of the record when the case came here. It has since been produced in response to our request and filed. Notwithstanding the service of notice of the order denying the motion for new trial, September 7, 1927, the notice of appeal therefrom was not served until June 26, 1930.
In order to be effective for any purpose such a notice must be served and filed within 30 days from the notice by the adverse party of the filing of the order appealed from. G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) §§ 9492, 9497. Counsel for defendant has been so accommodating as not to question our jurisdiction, but that does not help *574 plaintiff. The jurisdiction of this court on appeal does not rest upon the consent of counsel or litigants. If it does not exist otherwise, no amount of accommodation on their part can create it. The appeal must be dismissed.
The printed record should show jurisdiction plainly and affirmatively. In this case the notice of appeal was not printed, nor is there in the printed record any reference to its date. There is only the misleading statement that one was “duly served and filed as provided by statute.”
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.