In re Estate of Heydenfeldt

This cause is now before us on a motion to dismiss the appeal of Henrietta Heydenfeldt, upon the ground that said appeal was taken from three separate and distinct orders, and that only one undertaking on said appeal has been given and filed by said appellant.

The motion of appeal states that the appellant appeals “from each of the orders given and made herein granting the petitions of Zeila 0. Hellings for payment of mortgage, and particularly from the order or decree heretofore, on or about June 1, 1896, filed herein, directing the redemption and exoneration of mortgaged premises upon the petition of Zeila 0. Hellings; and also from the order made on or about February 17, 1896, denying to said Henrietta Heydenfeldt the right to participate in the proceedings upon the hearing of said petitions of Zelia O. Hellings for payment of mortgage; and from the order made on or about March .14, 1896, striking from the files the answers of Henrietta Heydenfeldt to said petitions of Zeila O. Hellings; and from the whole and each and every part of each and every of the said orders and decree.” The undertaking recites that Henrietta Heydenfeldt has appealed to the supreme court from the…

I dissent. In my opinion but one of the orders was appealable, and there was but one appeal. Besides, I am unable to distinguish this case from SprecJcels v. SprecJcels, supra, in which a bond similarly defective was held to be amendable, and this bond has been amended.

Behearing denied.