DocketNumber: Nos. 25,484, 25,485.
Citation Numbers: 210 N.W. 877, 169 Minn. 172, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1413
Judges: Dibeud
Filed Date: 11/19/1926
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
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 desiring *Page 173 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.