St. Anthony Falls Bank v. Graham

• Decision Date: 27 January 1897
• Citation: 67 Minn. 318,69 N.W. 1077
• Parties: ST. ANTHONY FALLS BANK v GRAHAM ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

67 Minn. 318

69 N.W. 1077

ST. ANTHONY FALLS BANKvGRAHAM ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 27, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The plaintiff made an alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to Laws 1895, c. 320, or for a new trial. The trial court made its order denying the first request, and granting the plaintiff a new trial. The plaintiff appealed from the part of the order denying its motion for judgment. Held, that no appeal lies from such part of the order.

Appeal from district court, Stearns county; L. L. Baxter, Judge.

Action by the St. Anthony Falls Bank against Arthur Graham and others. Verdict for defendant Thomas Graham and against defendant Arthur Graham. From an order denying a motion for judgment against Thomas Graham notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.

A. A. Stone, for appellant.

Miner & Barto and D. T. Calhoun, for respondent.

START, C. J.

This is an action on a promissory note made by defendants. The answer alleges that the defendants signed the note when they were intoxicated. The trial court ordered a verdict against the defendant Arthur Graham for the amount of the note, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Thomas Graham. The plaintiff then made an alternative motion for judgment in its favor against Thomas Graham notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial as to such defendant. The trial court denied so much of the motion as asked for judgment absolute, and granted a new trial. The plaintiff appealed from so much of the order as denied its motion for judgment.

The contention of the respondents that the order is not appealable is sustained. An order granting or denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, made pursuant to Laws 1895, c. 320, is simply an order for judgment or one refusing a judgment, and it is therefore, standing alone, not appealable. Ames v. Boom Co., 8 Minn. 467 (Gil. 417); McMahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn. 357 (Gil. 232); Rogers v. Holyoke, 14 Minn. 514 (Gil. 387); Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 317, 4 N. W. 45;State v. Bechdel, 38 Minn. 278, 37 N. W. 338. Such an order can only be reviewed by appeal from a judgment or from an order granting or denying a motion for a new trial, except that when the motion for judgment is blended with a motion for a new trial, pursuant to Laws 1895, c. 320, on an appeal from the order disposing of such motion the action of the trial court in directing or refusing judgment regardless of the verdict may be reviewed. Kernan v. Railway Co. (Minn.) 67 N. W. 71. If the party moving for judgment notwithstanding the verdict does not desire a new trial, but to stand upon the record, he should move for judgment without asking for the alternative relief of a new trial. Then, if either party wishes to review the order made on such motion, he can have judgment entered in accordance with the order,-that is, on the verdict, or notwithstanding it,-and appeal from the judgment, and have the order reviewed as an intermediate one...