Sayer v. Harris Produce Co.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1901
• Citation: 84 Minn. 216,87 N.W. 617
• Parties: SAYER v. HARRIS PRODUCE CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

84 Minn. 216

87 N.W. 617

SAYER

v.HARRIS PRODUCE CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 25, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Chisago county; F. M. Crosby, Judge.

Action by B. L. Sayer against the Harris Produce Company. From a judgment for defendant notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

A motion at the close of the testimony requesting the trial court to direct a verdict in favor of the moving party is a necessary preliminary, without which no further steps can be taken under the provisions of Laws 1895, c. 320. Savage & Purdy, for appellant.

P. H. Stollberg, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

Appeal from a judgment rendered in accordance with an order of the court directing that the same be entered in favor of the defendant and against plaintiff, notwithstanding a verdict previously returned in the latter's favor. This judgment will have to be reversed. The order therefor was based upon a motion made in the alternative, as provided in Laws 1895, c. 320, but the provision in that statute requiring the making of a motion at the close of the testimony requesting the trial court to direct a verdict for the moving party was not observed. Such a motion is a necessary preliminary, without which no further steps can be taken under the provisions of said chapter 320. We surmise that the attention of the learned trial court was not called to this point on the hearing of the alternative motion.

Judgment reversed and case remanded, without prejudice to defendant's right, it there be a right, to move for a new trial.