Kernan v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1896
• Docket Number: Nos. 9941 - (243).,s. 9941 - (243).
• Citation: 64 Minn. 312
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: FRANK KERNAN v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

Page 312

64 Minn. 312

FRANK KERNAN v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.¹

Nos. 9941 - (243).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 5, 1896.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kelly, J., setting aside the verdict, and directing judgment against plaintiff notwithstanding the verdict. Reversed.

McCafferty & Noyes, for appellant.

Munn, Boyesen & Thygeson, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

The plaintiff recovered in this action a verdict for $3,000 as damages for personal injury. Defendant moved for a new trial, and on the hearing of the motion the court below ordered judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict. From this order plaintiff appeals.

Laws 1895, c. 320, provides:

"Section 1. In all cases where, at the close of the testimony in the case tried, a motion is made by either party to the suit requesting the trial court to direct a verdict in favor of the party making such motion, which motion was denied, the trial court on motion made that judgment be entered notwithstanding the verdict, or on motion for a new trial, shall order judgment to be entered in favor of the party who was entitled to have a verdict directed in his or its favor; and the supreme court of the state on appeal from an order granting or denying a motion for a new trial in the action in which such motion was made, may order and direct judgment to be entered in favor of the party who was entitled to have such verdict directed in his or its favor, whenever it shall appear from the testimony that the party was entitled to have such motion granted."

At the close of the evidence on the trial of the case, defendant moved that a verdict be directed in its favor, and thereby, in that respect, brought itself within the terms of this statute.

1. Appellant contends that this statute is unconstitutional; that it violates the provisions of the constitution which guaranty the right of trial by jury. We cannot so hold. If the plaintiff is given a jury trial as the constitution requires, and he fails to produce any evidence which will sustain a verdict in his favor, the court may, without contravening the constitution, order a verdict for defendant. We see no reason why the legislature may not empower the court to make such order nunc pro tunc at a subsequent time, and even after an unwarranted and invalid verdict has been recorded, if the court refused to make the order when moved for at the proper time at the close of the trial.

2. The defendant moved for a new trial on several statutory grounds, but nowhere in its motion papers asked that it have judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and yet the court awarded it this relief. This, appellant contends, is improper. On the other hand, respondent contends that this practice is authorized by the above statute.

It must be admitted that, taken literally, the statute would seem at first glance to warrant respondent's contention. It provides that "the trial court on motion made that judgment be entered notwithstanding the verdict, or on motion for a new trial, shall order judgment to be entered in favor of the party who was entitled to have a verdict rendered in his or its favor." It further provides that on appeal from an order granting or denying a new trial the supreme court may order judgment for the...