Patterson Land Co. v. Lynn
Decision Date | 21 June 1919 |
Citation | 175 N.W. 211,44 N.D. 251 |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Motion to vacate decision and reinstate and reopen cause.
Motion denied.
Motion denied.
George W. Newton, R. N. Stevens, H. C. Lynn, Geo. W. Lynn, and H. A Bronson, for motion.
Watson & Young and E. T. Conmy, contra.
BRONSON J., did not participate.
The original opinion in this case was filed March 6, 1914. A rehearing was denied April 11, 1914 (see 27 N.D. 391, 147 N.W. 256). A motion to recall the remittitur and reinstate the appeal was filed March 14, 1917, and, after hearing had was denied by an opinion filed April 28, 1917 (36 N.D. 341, 162 N.W. 702). In that opinion this court said: Patterson Land Co. v. Lynn, 36 N.D. 341-343, 162 N.W. 702.
The defendant has now filed a motion "to vacate the determination, order, judgment, and decree of this court, made in the above-entitled cause on the 6th day of March, 1914, and to direct the district court of Emmons county to vacate any and all judgments, decrees, and acts done under the direction of this said judgment of this court, on the ground that this court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief pretended by said judgment and decree to be granted, and said judgment and decree is absolutely void and of no effect." The specific ground for the present motion is that this court erred in its original decision in allowing certain amendments to the complaint which were offered during the course of the trial and rejected by the trial court. See, 27 N.D. 391, 416, 147 N.W. 256. Defendant contends that the amendments changed the "subject-matter" and introduced the proposition of an involuntary trust, as a "new subject-matter."
This court doubtless has power to review rulings on proposed amendments. Under our statute pleadings may be amended even after judgment. Comp. Laws 1913, § 7482.
This case was appealed to this court for a trial de novo. The statute provides that in such cases "the supreme court shall try anew the question of fact specified in the statement or in the entire case, if the appellant demands a retrial of the entire case, and shall finally dispose of the same whenever justice can be done without a new trial, and either affirm or modify the judgment or direct a new judgment to be entered in the district court." Comp. Laws 1913, § 7846.
The statute contemplates that when a retrial of the entire case is demanded, the supreme court shall review the entire record and "render final judgment, and thus, by its mandate, forever terminate the particular litigation." Christianson v. Farmers' Warehouse Asso. 5 N.D. 438, 445, 32 L.R.A. 730, 67 N.W. 300. It is only in unusual cases, and where the court "deems such cause necessary to be accomplishment of justice," that a new trial may be ordered. § 7846, supra.
It was doubtless the intention of the legislature, by the enactment of this statute, to create "a means of terminating litigation in a manner that should at once possess the strongest probability of absolute justice with the least expenditure of time and money;" and to avoid "the delay and expense of the second trial, and the risk of further errors that might necessitate a second appeal." Christianson v. Farmers' Warehouse Asso. supra.
It is for this court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial