
    ROBERT M. WORKS v. LEON J. TIBER AND ANOTHER.
    
    November 19, 1926.
    Nos. 25,484, 25,485.
    Appeal dismissed because question was moot.
    Upon the application of the defendants a party was added. The plaintiff and such party appealed, but did not file a supersedeas bond. The action proceeded to trial and resulted in judgment for the defendants against the plaintiff and the added party. This was the situation when the appeal was heard. The question presented is in the nature of a moot one and the appeal is dismissed.
    Appeal and Error, 3 C. J. p. 357 n. 80, 81; p. 358 n. 84; p. 359 n. 85; 4 C. J. p. 575 n. 80.
    Laron E. Honn and plaintiff appealed separately from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Salmon, J., making Honn and Mott additional parties in an action for specific performance of a contract for sale of land.
    Appeals dismissed.
    
      Frank W. Booth, for appellants.
    
      Brill é Maslon and Robert 8. Eollmer, for respondents.
    
      
       Reported in 210 N. W. 877.
    
   Dibeud, J.

Action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land by the defendants to one Mott which contract was assigned by Mott to the plaintiff. Upon the motion of the defendants Mott and one Honn were made parties. Honn and the plaintiff appeal separately from the order.

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 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.  