ber, attorney for plaintiff, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the said motion be, and the same is denied. Dated March 13th, A. D. 1891. By the Court: W. S. Lauder, Judge.” The last order is sought to be appealed to this court.
The appellant assigns numerous errors based upon the record transmitted to this court; but, as we view the case, such errors cannot be reached by this court for jurisdictional reasons. The point is made that the order attempted to be appealed from—the order refusing to vacate a previous order dismissing the appeal—is not an appealable order under our statute regulating appeals. We are of the opinion that the point is well taken, and must be sustained. The appellant has assumed by the appesl—and respondent doeb not discuss the point—that an order of the district court dismissing an appeal, if made by the court, is an appealable order, under subdivision 1, § 24, c 120, Laws 1891, which reads as follows: “(1) An order affecting a substantial right, made in any action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.” Without deciding the point, we will assume, for the appellant’s benefit, that an order of the district court dismissing an appeal from a justice court, if made by the court, is an appealable order. But appellant’s counsel takes the position, inasmuch as the order ‘of dismissal was not on its face an order made “by the court,” but was an order signed as follows, “W. S. Lauder, Judge District Court, Richland Co., N. D.,” that such order was not a court order at all, but was a mere “chambers order,” made by the judge out of court, and that such an order, under subdivision 5, § 24, c. 120, Laws 1891, was not appealable, and that the order refusing to vacate, which reads on its face, above the judge’s signature, “ By the court,” is appealable under said subdivision 5. We cannot yield our assent to this reasoning. In the first place, it appears from the record that the order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed cited defendant to “ show cause before the court at chambers,” and the order of dismissal recites that it was made after hearing both parties upon such order to show cause. From these recitals it appears from the record that the order of dismissal was a court
