Olson v. Mattison
| Decision Date | 18 July 1907 |
| Citation | 16 N.D. 231,112 N.W. 994 |
| Parties | OLSON v. MATTISON et al. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
An order refusing to set aside a judgment rendered after a trial and verdict is not appealable, when such order is based on a motion to set aside the judgment on the ground that the special verdict on which the judgment was entered did not warrant the entry of judgment thereon.
Irregularities in the rendition of judgment may be corrected by motion; but the correction of errors of law occurring at the trial, or in framing or receiving special verdicts, or in entering judgment thereon, can only be made by appeal or motion for a new trial.
Appeal from District Court, Ward County; E. B. Goss, Judge.
Action by George Olson against Eric Mattison and Lye Storby. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Dismissed.Le Sueur & Bradford, for appellants. James Johnson, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Ward county denying a motion to set aside a judgment entered after a trial and upon a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The verdict was returned into court on the 8th day of December, 1905, and on the 11th day of December, 1905, the plaintiff secured an order to show cause why judgment should not be rendered in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to the verdict, and said order to show cause was duly served upon the defendants. On the 14th of December, 1905, the parties appearedbefore the court pursuant to said order to show cause, and the defendants made objections to the entry of judgment upon the verdict. After hearing the parties on said order to show cause, the court ordered that judgment be entered on the verdict, and judgment was entered on the 15th day of December, 1905, and notice of the entry of said judgment was duly served on the defendants on the same day. On the 24th day of January, 1906, the defendants made a motion in the district court to vacate, dissolve, and set aside said judgment upon the ground that the same was not supported by the special verdict upon which the judgment was based. This motion came on for hearing and was duly denied by the court. The defendants appealed to this court from said order refusing to set aside the judgment on that ground.
The plaintiff moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the order refusing to set aside the judgment is not an appealable order. The motion is granted. There is no statutory provision permitting the practice of setting aside by motion judgments entered after a trial, for errors of law committed at the trial. Whether the special verdict was framed in accordance with established procedure, and whether the same was in all respects sufficient to warrant the entering of judgment thereon, are strictly questions of law. If the special verdict was not sufficient on which to base a judgment, the entering of judgment on such verdict was an error of law, and such error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wall v. First Nat. Bank of Crosby
...a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See, also, as to appealable orders, Persons v. Simons, 1 N. D. 243, 46 N. W. 969;Olson v. Mattison et al., 16 N. D. 231, and note, 112 N. W. 994;Dibble v. Hanson, 17 N. D. 21, and cases cited, 114 N. W. 371, 16 Ann. Cas. 1210;Strecker v. Railson, 19 N......
-
Whitney v. Ritz
...leading thereto could be reviewed. For a more extended discussion of the question, as to what orders are appealable, see Olson v. Mattison, 16 N.D. 231, and note N.W. 994; Bolton v. Donavan, 9 N.D. 575, 84 N.W. 357; Northern P. R. Co. v. Barlow, 20 N.D. 197, 126 N.W. 233, Ann. Cas. 1912C 76......
-
Engen v. Medberry Farmers Equity Elevator Company, a Corp.
...10 N.D. 203, 86 N.W. 709; Ramsburg v. Kline, 96 Va. 465, 31 S.E. 608; Richardson v. Ruddy, 15 Idaho 488, 98 P. 842; Olson v. Mattison, 16 N.D. 231, 112 N.W. 994; Wyandotte County v. Equitable Invest. Trust Co., 80 Kan. 492, 103 P. 996; 34 C. J. 286; 15 R. C. L. p. 174. It has been held by t......
-
George Dixon, Inc. v. Cent. Motors Co.
...and an order is made refusing to vacate and modify such judgment, such order is not an appealable order. Following Olson v. Mattison et al., 16 N.D. 231, 112 N.W. 994. 2. Where a conditional sale contract reserves to the seller full title in the property until the purchaser has paid the ful......