Bradley v. Norris

• Decision Date: 28 December 1896
• Docket Number: 10,199--(143)
• Citation: 69 N.W. 624,67 Minn. 48
• Parties: ALVA W. BRADLEY v. MICHAEL NORRIS and Others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

69 N.W. 624

67 Minn. 48

ALVA W. BRADLEY v. MICHAEL NORRIS and Others

Nos. 10,199--(143)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 28, 1896

Appeal by defendants Michael Norris and Mary Norris from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Moer, J., denying a motion for a new trial and from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $ 11,084.06. Affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed.

William B. Phelps and Warner, Richardson & Lawrence, for appellants.

Billson Congdon & Dickinson, for respondent.

OPINION

START C. J.

This action, which was one to recover damages for a breach of the covenants of warranty and right to convey in a deed of land was here on a former appeal by the plaintiff from an order denying his motion for a new trial. See 63 Minn. 156, 65 N.W. 357, for a full statement of the facts of the case. Upon such appeal it was held by this court that, upon the facts found by the trial court, there was a breach of the covenants; that the plaintiff was entitled to full damages; that the order appealed from should be reversed, and the case remanded to the district court, with directions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendants, for the amount claimed. Judgment was so entered in this court, and the mandate sent down. Thereupon the district court entered judgment on motion of the plaintiff, but without notice to the defendants, strictly in accordance with the mandate of this court. The defendants appealed from such judgment.

The defendants assign as error on the appeal from the judgment that it was not warranted by the facts admitted by the pleadings and those found by the trial court, because they showed that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. We cannot consider this or any of the defendants' assignments of error on this appeal from the judgment, for the reason that the decision and judgment of this court on the former appeal constitute the law of this case upon all points in judgment. This conclusion does not rest upon the doctrine of stare decisis, but on the same principle as the doctrine of res adjudicata. This court has the right to overrule the decision made on the former appeal in some other case, but in this case it must be followed. Schleuder v. Corey, 30 Minn. 501, 16 N.W. 401; Maxwell v. Schwartz, 55 Minn. 414, 57 N.W. 141; Johnson v. Northwestern T. E. Co., 54 Minn. 37, 55 N.W. 829; Tilleny v. Wolverton, 54 Minn. 75, 55 N.W. 822; Elliott, App. Proc. § 578.

After the judgment was entered in the district court, the defendants made a motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The defendants appealed from an order denying the motion. The alleged newly-discovered evidence tends to show that the possession of the mortgaged premises by the mortgagee commenced in 1875, instead of 1878, as found by the trial court. If the former was the date of the entry into possession by the mortgagee, the right to redeem was barred; if the latter, it was not; hence the new evidence is material. It is not cumulative, for it relates to a distinct and independent fact, tending to establish the same ground of defense, as the evidence actually received on the trial, but as to which fact no evidence was offered on the trial, for the reason that the existence of such evidence was unknown to the defendants. Layman v. Minneapolis S. R. Co., 66 Minn. 452, 69 N.W. 329.

An order granting or denying a motion...