National Investment Company v. National Savings, Loan & Building Association
| Decision Date | 29 October 1892 |
| Citation | 53 N.W. 546,51 Minn. 198 |
| Parties | National Investment Company v. National Savings, Loan & Building Association |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
October 10, 1892, Submitted on briefs
Appeal by plaintiff, National Investment Company, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Brill, J., made September 7, 1892, refusing a new trial.
This action was brought against the defendant, National Savings Loan and Building Association, to recover the sum of $ 7,200 upon its written contract to purchase of the plaintiff a certain mortgage for that amount made to it by one W. J Woolsey. The defendant is a building association under the laws of this state, and neither plaintiff nor Woolsey, at the time the contract was made, was a member or stockholder thereof. The court found these facts, but ordered judgment for the plaintiff, which was entered. On appeal to this court, it was held that on the findings, defendant was entitled to judgment, instead of plaintiff, and the judgment was reversed, but the opinion contained no further direction as to subsequent proceedings. National Inv. Co. v National Sav., L. & B. Ass'n, 49 Minn. 517. The case was then placed upon the June, 1892, calendar of the District Court. When called for trial in its order, defendant moved on the pleadings, findings, and mandate from this court, for judgment in its favor. The motion was granted, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Order affirmed.
William G. White, for appellant.
The order of the court reversing the judgment of the court below was general, and not qualified by any specific direction. Its effect was to send back the case for a new trial upon all the issues made by the pleadings. Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294; Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136; Perry v. Burton, 126 Ill. 599; Stearns v. Aguirre, 7 Cal. 443; Ryan v. Tomlinson, 39 Cal. 639; Freeman, Judg. § 481; Crispen v. Hannovan, 86 Mo. 160.
C. E. Hamilton, for respondent.
Where a judgment of a trial court is reversed without specific directions, future proceedings depend upon the grounds on which the reversal was based. If the opinion shows that the case was reversed for reasons which preclude a recovery, the court below should enter judgment in accordance with the opinion, without a new trial. Jordan v. Humphrey, 32 Minn. 522; Treadway v. Johnson, 39 Mo.App. 176. The cases cited by appellant to the contrary are not in point.
When this case was before us on a former appeal the judgment appealed from was reversed without any formal direction as to what further proceedings should be had in the action. 49 Minn. 517, (52 N.W. 138.)
The effect of a simple reversal of a judgment depends upon the grounds upon which the reversal is based, as expressed in the "opinion" of the court. In the absence of any formal direction, the opinion of the court is to be consulted for the purpose of determining the effect of the reversal. Jordan v. Humphrey, 32 Minn. 522, (21 N.W. 713.)
An examination of the opinion of the court in the present case shows that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. Robison
... ... 195; Nat. Ins. Co. v. Nat. Loan ... Assn., 53 N.W. 546; Jordan v. Humphries, ... and S. M. Co. v ... National Bank, 15 Utah 391; Morrow v. Merritt, ... 16 ... ...