
    MEL BLIED v. GEORGE F. BARNARD.
    
    July 2, 1915.
    Nos. 19,406—(256).
    Order not appealable.
    Where a case is remanded for a new trial unless defendant consented to a reduction of the verdict, and he immediately makes application for leave to serve and file an amended answer, an order denying the application before a new trial is not appealable. [Reporter.]
    After the decision in the former appeal reported in 126 Minn. 159, 147 N. W. 1095, defendant applied to the district court for Steele county for leave to serve a supplemental answer. From the order denying the application, Childress, J., defendant appealed.
    Dismissed.
    
      J. A. & A. W. Sawyer, for appellant.
    
      Larrabee & Davies and Paul J. Thompson, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 153 N. W. 305.
    
   Per Curiam.

This case was before this court at the April, 1914, term, and .was remanded for a new trial unless defendant should consent to a reduction of the verdict. Blied v. Barnard, 126 Minn. 159, 147 N. W. 1095. As soon as the remittitur was filed in the lower court, defendant made an application to that court for permission to serve and file a supplemental answer which application was denied and he appealed from the order denying it. Such an order made before the trial is not appealable. Hanley v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Cass County, 87 Minn. 209, 91 N. W. 756; Stromme v. Rieck, 110 Minn. 472, 125 N. W. 1021; Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley, 129 Minn. 536, 152 N. W. 653.

Appeal dismissed.  