Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company, 36728
| Decision Date | 09 September 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 36728,36728 |
| Citation | 245 Minn. 396,71 N.W.2d 861 |
| Parties | Edward J. PTTON, Respondent, v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a new trial Of all issues is granted the former trial is completely set aside or wiped out with all its evidence and proceedings and the case stands and the parties are in exactly the same position as if there had been no trial at all. And upon an appeal from an order or judgment as a result of the last trial there can be no review of the evidence or proceedings at the former trial or of the order granting the new trial.
Frank X. Cronan and John E. Castor, Ray G. Moonan, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Johnson & Essling, St. Paul, for respondent.
This is a personal injury action in which there were three trials. As originally instituted the action was between Edward J. Patton, as plaintiff, and Minneapolis Street Railway Company, a corporation, and the City of Minneapolis, a municipal corporation, as defendants. The first trial was before Judge D. E. LaBelle. When the evidence was closed a verdict was directed in favor of the defendant City of Minneapolis and the action as between the plaintiff and the defendant Minneapolis Street Railway Company was submitted to a jury by a special verdict containing eight interrogatories, no general verdict being submitted. Upon the special interrogatories as answered by the jury the defendant Street Railway Company moved for a verdict in its favor and against the plaintiff, which motion was denied. The court, upon its own initiative, however, pursuant to Rule 59.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, set aside the proceedings and granted a new trial between the parties On all issues raised by the pleadings and amendments thereto.
Prior to the second trial plaintiff dismissed its action against the defendant City of Minneapolis. The second trial, which was between the plaintiff and the defendant, Street Railway Company, as the sole parties, came on before Judge George D. Erickson, sitting temporarily as a judge of the fourth judicial district, and was tried on all issues. There was a mistrial, the jury having failed to reach a verdict. A motion by the defendant, Street Railway Company, for judgment in its favor, notwithstanding that the jury had disagreed and had been discharged, having been denied, Judge Erickson directed that the action be set down for trial again on a day certain.
The third trial, likewise between the plaintiff and the defendant, Street Railway Company, as the sole parties and also on all issues, came on before Judge Rolf Fosseen and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant Minneapolis Street Railway Company's alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial having been denied, an appeal was taken to this court from that order of denial. By the notice of appeal the defendant also seeks to review the various proceedings and orders made and entered in the first and second trials.
The matter now before us for consideration is a motion by the plaintiff for an order limiting defendant's appeal to the issues litigated in the third trial, it being plaintiff's position that we are not at liberty to review the proceedings,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., s. C5-87-1264
...the rules governing the appellate process is that appeals should not be brought or considered piecemeal. Patton v. Minneapolis Street Ry., 245 Minn. 396, 398, 71 N.W.2d 861, 862 (1955). The purpose of the policy is not only to conserve judicial resources but to expedite trial proceedings. P......
-
Gummow v. Gummow
...the previous case. Quast v. Prudential Property & Cas. Co., 267 N.W.2d 493, 495 (Minn.1978) (quoting Patton v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 245 Minn. 396, 398, 71 N.W.2d 861, 862 (1955)). A reviewing court will not set aside the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneou......
-
Stone v. Invitation Homes, Inc.
... ... Vavreck, Gonko &Vavreck PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; ... and Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., ... 2022); see Patton v ... Minneapolis St. Ry. , 71 N.W.2d 861, ... was injured by one insurance company sought to certify a ... defendant class of ... ...
-
Orsburne v. Lindgren
...and proceedings, and the parties are in exactly the same position as if there had been no trial at all. Patton v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 245 Minn. 396, 398, 71 N.W.2d 861, 862 (1955). A district court may not grant a new trial under rule 59.01 unless it finds the existence of one of seven......