
    Johns and others, Appellants, vs. Northwestern Mutual Relief Association, Respondent.
    
      November 5
    
    
      November 24, 1896.
    
    
      Appealable order; New trial after remission of record to trial court: Mutual benefit societies.
    
    On an appeal in an equitable action against a mutual benefit society to enforce the levy of an assessment to pay a loss, it was held that the defendant was not liable because the deceased came to his death by suicide; but the question whether under the peculiar wording of the contract the plaintiffs could recover a percentage of the assessments paid was left undetermined, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings according to law. After the cause had been remitted to the trial court, a motion was made for permission to introduce additional evidence, or for a new trial.
    
      Held, that an order denying such motion was not appealable.
    Appeal from an order-of the circuit court for Waukesha county: Waeham Paeks, Circuit Judge.
    
      Appeal dismissed.
    
    Eor the appellants there was a brief by Ryan & Merton, and oral argument by E. Merton.
    
    Eor the respondent there was a brief by H. W. Ohynoweth and T. W. Maight, and oral argument by Mr. Ohynoweth.
    
   Cassoday, 0. J.

This action in equity was commenced September 23,1893,. to enforce an assessment to pay the loss suffered by the death of Hubert Johns, June 1, 1893, under the contract of insurance. The case was here upon a former appeal, and we held that there was no liability for such death, for the reason that it was the result of “suicide or self-destruction,” but left it open to be determined whether a recovery could be had for a percentage of the assessments paid by the deceased, under the peculiar wording of the contract, and so remanded the case for further proceedings according to law. 90 Wis. 332. Thereupon the plaintiffs moved the trial court for permission to introduce additional evidence, or for a new trial. From an order wholly denying ■that motion, but without costs, and ordering judgment to be entered as therein directed, the plaintiffs bring this appeal.

Manifestly, it is not an order affecting a substantial right, determining the action, and preventing a judgment from which an appeal might have been taken, within the meaning of the statutes. R. S. sec. 3069, as amended by ch. 212, Laws of 1895. It is a mere interlocutory order, and is not appealable. In re Schumaker, 90 Wis. 488; Cook v. McComb, 91 Wis. 445.

By the Court.— The appeal is dismissed as of November 5, 1896.  