May v. Grawert
| Decision Date | 16 May 1902 |
| Docket Number | 12,904 - (51) |
| Citation | 90 N.W. 383,86 Minn. 210 |
| Parties | LEWIS L. MAY v. CHARLES D. GRAWERT |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the municipal court of St Paul, Hine, J., affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace. Reversed.
Jurisdiction of Justice Court -- Discharge of Jury without Further Action.
In an action tried to a jury in justice's court, it appeared from the docket entries that the jury disagreed, and was discharged at 10.30 p. m., March 19. The docket failed to show any continuance or other disposition of the cause at that time, or at any time subsequent to the discharge of the jury, and it contained no other entries until April 3, when in response to a notice from defendant's attorney that he would then apply "for a new venire for a retrial," plaintiff's attorney appeared, and objected to further proceedings upon the ground that the court had lost jurisdiction of the cause, which objection was overruled, an exception taken, and, against plaintiff's protest, another trial was had. Held, that the justice lost jurisdiction of the case by permitting a period of two weeks to elapse after discharging the first jury before taking further action.
Amendment of Complaint -- Waiver.
Before proceeding to trial, but after the objection, ruling, and exception, counsel for plaintiff amended their complaint, but not so as to change the cause of action. Held, that by this amendment plaintiff did not waive or surrender his previously asserted objection, and did not restore or confer jurisdiction upon the court to further proceed.
O. H. Comfort and H. J. & A. E. Horn, for appellant.
B. F. Latta, for respondent.
From a judgment rendered against him in justice court, the plaintiff appealed to the municipal court of the city of St. Paul on questions of law alone. The determination of the justice was there affirmed, and this appeal is from a judgment subsequently entered against the plaintiff in municipal court for costs and disbursements.
It appears from the return of the justice, on which the appeal was decided in municipal court, that on March 19, 1901, the case was tried to a jury, and the result was a disagreement; the justice certifying in his docket that he was satisfied that it was useless to hold the jury longer. The jury was discharged at 10.30 that evening. The docket fails to show any continuance or other disposition of the case at that time, or at any time subsequent to the discharge of the jury; and it contained no entries whatsoever until April 3, -- an interval of two weeks. It then appears from the docket that on April 1, defendant's attorney served notice upon the plaintiff that he would apply to the justice "for a new venire for the retrial of said action" on April 3. At that time plaintiff's attorney appeared and objected to further proceedings upon the ground that the court had lost jurisdiction of the cause by failing to issue a new venire, upon discharging the jury, as provided by G.S. 1894, § 5014, and because two weeks had elapsed without any steps being taken in the action. These objections were made more than once, and the court was fully informed of plaintiff's position and claim. The objection to further proceedings for the reasons stated was overruled, plaintiff excepting, and he was compelled to proceed to another jury trial; the verdict being against him. Prior to entering upon the second trial, but subsequent to the objections before mentioned, the plaintiff amended his complaint, and the original answer was refiled as an answer to this amendment.
The municipal court seems to have been of the opinion that by amending his complaint the plaintiff voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, waived all objections previously made, and consented to the further proceedings and this view led it to conclude that the judgment of the justice should be affirmed. Three cases have been cited as supporting this position: Wrolson v. Anderson, 53 Minn. 508, 55 N.W. 597; Mead v. Sanders, 57 Minn. 108, 58 N.W. 683; McCubrey v. Lankis, 74 Minn. 302, 77 N.W. 144. A casual examination will show that they are not in point, the facts being wholly different. The statutory provisions which govern the procedure in justice's court must be strictly followed, and this has been the ruling of this court during its entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial