Smith v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 19904[53].,19904[53]. |
| Citation | 159 N.W. 623,134 Minn. 292 |
| Parties | SMITH v. MINNEAPOLIS ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Horace D. Dickinson, Judge.
Action by Nancy E. Smith against the Minneapolis Street Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed on appeal. 132 Minn. 51, 155 N. W. 1046. From an order thereafter made, denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff and an appeal was taken by the defendant. More than six months afterwards, six months being the time within which an appeal may be taken, the judgment was affirmed. The defendant then moved for a new trial upon the ground of error and insufficiency of evidence. It is held that the motion was too late, that it would have been error to grant a new trial, and that the denial of it was right.John F. Dahl and W. Y. Smiley, both of Minneapolis (N. M. Thygeson, of Minneapolis, of counsel), for appellant.
Mead & Bryngelson and L. S. Ogden, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
On February 5, 1915, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On May 29, 1915, the court denied the motion. Judgment was entered on July 12, 1915. The defendant appealed from this judgment. More than six months later the judgment was affirmed. Smith v. Minneapolis, etc., 132 Minn. 51, 155 N. W. 1046. On March 2, 1916, defendant made the motion for a new trial involved in this appeal. No prior motion for a new trial had been made. The motion was made upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence and for errors of law occurring at the trial. A motion to dismiss the appeal was denied. Smith v. Minneapolis, etc., 157 N. W. 499.
One question presented is whether a motion for a new trial upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence or for errors at the trial can be made after judgment and after the time for appeal from the judgment has expired and after affirmance on appeal. We do not find that the precise question has been decided. An appeal from a judgment lies within six months. G. S. 1913, § 8000; R. L. 1905, § 4364. We have held that in the exercise of a sound discretion a court may grant a motion for a new trial after the entry of judgment and within six months. Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 457 (Gil. 411); Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn. 302, 13 N. W. 129. We have held that an application made more than one year after the entry of judgment is too late. Deering v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 97, 22 N. W. 174. And see Lawver v. Great N. Ry. Co., 110 Minn. 414, 125 N. W. 1017. The period of one year is the time within which under the statute a party may be relieved against a judgment taken against him by mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. G. S. 1913, § 7786; R. L. 1905, § 4160. We are of the opinion that when a judgment has become final by the expiration of the time within which an appeal may be taken it should not be subject to attack upon a motion for a new trial for error or insufficiency of evidence. The necessary effect of the granting of such a motion is to vacate the judgment. Noonan v. Spear, 125 Minn. 475, 147 N. W. 654. The statute contemplates that an unreversed judgment shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial