
    IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FRED W. ORTH AND ROBERT B. HENTON FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THEIR ACCOUNT AND THEIR DISCHARGE AS TRUSTEES OF AUGUST WALTERS. FRED W. ORTH AND OTHERS v. ROY WALTERS AND OTHERS.
    
    March 29, 1923.
    No. 23,311.
    Order not appealable.
    Neither an order for judgment nor an order determining the effect of evidence is appealable.
    Fred W. Ortb and Robert B. Henton petitioned tbe district court for Renville county for tbe allowance of tbeir final account as trustees; for an order fixing tbeir compensation and for distribution of tbe residue. Roy Walters and otlier beneficiaries filed objections to the petition. Tbe matter was beard by Daly, J., who made findings that tbe trust deed was legal and regular in every respect and that it was in no respect testamentary in character. From tbe order finding that the trust deed was a trust deed legal and regular in every respect, objectors appealed.
    Dismissed.
    
      A. C. Severson, for appellants.
    
      John A. Dalzell, for trustees.
    
      J. jIf. Freeman, for Herman Walters.
    
      
       Reported in 192 N. W. 936.
    
   IlATXAM, J.

Plaintiffs brought into tbe district court an instrument purporting to constitute them trustees of certain property, submitted what purported to be tbeir final account as such trustees, and asked for its allowance and for an order fixing tbeir compensation, and for distribution of tbe residue and for tbeir discharge. On tbe bearing of tbeir petition, defendants objected that tbe trust agreement was testamentary in character and invalid because not executed with the formalities of a will, that the grantor was incompetent, and they put plaintiffs to proof as to the correctness of the account.

On the hearing the court made an order, reciting that the parties had agreed that the only question to be determined by the court was whether the instrument was a deed of trust or an instrument, testamentary in character, and then proceeded to find that the instrument was a trust deed, not testamentary in character, ordered that further hearing might be had on ten days-’ notice by either party, and ordered a judgment to be entered. From this order an appeal is taken. The final account was not allowed. No distribution was ordered. While the order provided for further hearing, the purpose of the hearing it did not state. It may be doubted if the order is anything more than a ruling on the effect of evidence. Surely it is not more than an order 'for judgment, and not a final judgment at that. In no aspect is it an appealable order. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.  