Minnesota Supreme Court, 1930

Merchants & Manufacturers State Bank v. Hanson

Merchants & Manufacturers State Bank v. Hanson
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 27, 1930 · PER CURIAM.
231 N.W. 617; 181 Minn. 627; 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1050 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

W.H. McDonald and H.L. Frink , for appellant. Boutelle, Bowen Flanagan , for respondent.

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 1941, 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

Merchants & Manufacturers State Bank v. Hanson

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

PER CURIAM.

Respondent challenges our jurisdiction. The appeal purports to be from a judgment awarding plaintiff restitution in a forcible entry and unlawful detainer action in the municipal court of Minneapolis. Neither the printed record nor the original files show a judgment. Indeed, the latter bear evidence that no judgment has as yet been entered. It is true, the notice of appeal is also from the order directing a verdict for plaintiff, from the order-denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and from the order permitting plaintiff to open his case and introduce further testimony after the defendant rested; but none of such order is appealable.

Since there is no judgment here for review there is no choice but to dismiss the appeal. In case a judgment be entered and another appeal be taken, it is proper to call attention to the insufficiency of the assignments of error now before us to raise the questions on which defendant’s right to a reversal depend.

The appeal is dismissed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.