Oelschlegel v. Chi. G. W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1898 |
| Parties | OELSCHLEGEL v CHICAGO G. W. RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
An order denying a motion, made under the provisions of Laws 1895, c. 320, for the entry of judgment in favor of the moving party, notwithstanding the verdict against him, is not appealable.
Appeal from district court, Dakota county; F. M. Crosby, Judge.
Action by George Oelschlegel against the Chicago Great Western Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order refusing to enter judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict, defendant appeals. Dismissed.
D. W. Lawler and Albert Schaller, for appellant.
Frank Ford, for respondent.
In an action to recover for personal injuries plaintiff had a verdict. Upon a settled case defendant corporation moved to set aside the verdict, and that judgment be entered in its favor notwithstanding the same. This appeal is from an order denying the motion. No motion was made in the court below for a new trial. The order is not appealable. It was so suggested in Eckman v. Lauer (Minn.) 69 N. W. 893, and it was so held in Bank v. Graham, Id. 1077. The only difference in the facts between the case last cited and the present is that there the motion was in the alternative,-for judgment, or for a new trial in case judgment was not ordered; the court denied the first, but granted the alternative, request, and the appeal was from that part of the order which denied the motion for judgment,-while here the motion was not in the alternative, but simply for an order for judgment, which was denied, whereupon defendant appealed. Of course there is no substantial difference in the facts. Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company
... ... with the motion for a new trial, in case judgment is not ... granted, is not appealable. Oelschlegel v. Chicago G.W ... Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 50, 73 N.W. 631; Sanderson v ... Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 88 Minn. 162, 92 N.W. 542. But ... when the ... ...
-
Gay v. Kelley
... ... be abandoned, under the authority of St. Anthony Falls ... Bank v. Graham, 67 Minn. 318, 69 N.W. 1077; ... Oelschlegel v. Chicago G.W. Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 50, 73 ... N.W. 631, and Savings Bank of St. Paul v. St. Paul Plow ... Co., 76 Minn. 7, 78 N.W. 873, and the only ... ...
-
Gay v. Kelley
...would have to be abandoned, under the authority of St. Anthony Falls Bank v. Graham, 67 Minn. 318, 69 N. W. 1077,Oelschlegel v. C. G. W. Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 50, 73 N. W. 631, and Savings Bank of St. Paul v. St. P. Plow Company, 76 Minn. 7, 78 N. W. 873, and the only question remaining was whe......
-
Sanderson v. N. Pac. Ry. Co.
...12 Minn. 357 (Gil. 232); Rogers v. Holyoke, 14 Minn. 515 (Gil. 387); Bank v. Graham, 67 Minn. 318, 69 N. W. 1077;Oelschlegel v. Railway Co., 71 Minn. 50, 73 N. W. 631;Kalz v. Railway Co., 76 Minn. 351, 79 N. W. 310. Therefore the appeal in the case of A. W. Sanderson must be, and is, dismis......