Beebe v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | BARNES |
| Citation | 137 Wis. 269,118 N.W. 808 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1908 |
| Parties | BEEBE v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO. |
137 Wis. 269
118 N.W. 808
BEEBE
v.
MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Dec. 15, 1908.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Rusk County; John K. Parish, Judge.
Action by A. G. Beebe against the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company. There was a directed verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This action is brought to recover damages for the killing of live stock on two separate occasions. At the close of the testimony the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount demanded in his complaint as amended at the trial. Defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court to grant its motion for a directed verdict and the granting of the plaintiff's motion for such verdict. Defendant urges that its motion to direct a verdict should have been granted because the notices of loss failed to state where the animals were killed, and one of them failed to state that satisfaction was claimed for the loss sustained, and, further, that the jury, upon the facts that might be legitimately considered by it, would be warranted in finding a lesser amount than that which it was directed by the court to find.
[118 N.W. 809]
Leroy E. McGill, Alfred H. Bright, and John B. Sanborn, for appellant.
D. W. Maloney (W. H. Stafford, of counsel), for respondent.
BARNES, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The defendant did not except to the order or ruling of the court directing a verdict. It moved for a new trial upon the minutes of the court, but failed to state any ground upon which it based its motion, and finally failed to take any exception to the order of the court denying the motion for a new trial. This being the state of the record, counsel for plaintiff urges that there is nothing before the court for review. If this court has authority to review the judgment in this case, it must be on one of the following grounds: (1) The motion for a new trial is sufficient in form, and exception to the order refusing to grant the same is unnecessary; or (2) the order or ruling of the court in directing a verdict may be reviewed without exception and without a motion being made for a new trial.
1. The decided weight of authority in this court is to the effect that, where a statutory motion for a new trial is made, it should state the grounds upon which the motion was based, at least as specifically as they are mentioned in the statute. Nisbet v. Gill, 38 Wis. 657;Sloteman v. Thomas & Wentworth Mfg. Co., 69 Wis. 499, 34 N....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fryer v. Campbell, 1832
...(Ga.) 118 S.E. 583. Assignments numbered 9 to 12 merely amount to a statement that the judgment is erroneous. Beebe v. Ry Co., (Wisc.) 118 N.W. 808. The several assignments as to the insufficiency of pleadings were not grounds for a new trial. Komposh v. Powers, (Mont.) 244 P. 298; Mann v. ......
-
Klotz v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.
...an exception to such order. Miller v. Kenosha E. R. Co., 135 Wis. 71, 115 N. W. 355;Beebe v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 808;Holum v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 80 Wis. 299, 50 N. W. 99. That is the only order attempted to be reviewed here. No ......
-
Barnum v. Chamberlain Land & Loan Co., No. 3501.
...299, 50 N. W. 99;Klotz v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., 144 Wis. 384, 129 N. W. 524;Beebe v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 808. Section 463, Code Civ. Proc., is as follows: Section 463: “Upon an appeal from a judgment, as well as upon a writ of error, t......
-
Bailey v. Security Ins. Co.
...R. Co., 80 Wis. 299, 50 N.W. 99; Klotz v. Milwaukee Electric R. etc., Co., 144 Wis. 384, 129 N.W. 524; Beebe v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 137 Wis. 269, 118 N.W. 808. The authors of 6 Ency. of Plead. & Prac. announce the rule: "Where no exception is taken to the direction of verdic......
-
Fryer v. Campbell, 1832
...(Ga.) 118 S.E. 583. Assignments numbered 9 to 12 merely amount to a statement that the judgment is erroneous. Beebe v. Ry Co., (Wisc.) 118 N.W. 808. The several assignments as to the insufficiency of pleadings were not grounds for a new trial. Komposh v. Powers, (Mont.) 244 P. 298; Mann v. ......
-
Klotz v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.
...an exception to such order. Miller v. Kenosha E. R. Co., 135 Wis. 71, 115 N. W. 355;Beebe v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 808;Holum v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 80 Wis. 299, 50 N. W. 99. That is the only order attempted to be reviewed here. No ......
-
Bailey v. Security Ins. Co.
...R. Co., 80 Wis. 299, 50 N.W. 99; Klotz v. Milwaukee Electric R. etc., Co., 144 Wis. 384, 129 N.W. 524; Beebe v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 137 Wis. 269, 118 N.W. 808. The authors of 6 Ency. of Plead. & Prac. announce the rule: "Where no exception is taken to the direction of verdic......
-
Barnum v. Chamberlain Land & Loan Co., No. 3501.
...299, 50 N. W. 99;Klotz v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., 144 Wis. 384, 129 N. W. 524;Beebe v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 808. Section 463, Code Civ. Proc., is as follows: Section 463: “Upon an appeal from a judgment, as well as upon a writ of error, t......