National Investment Co. v. Schickling
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by Charles L. Haas, one of the defendants, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, William Louis Kelly, J. made June 24, 1893, denying his motion for a new trial. Appeal also by the plaintiff, National Investment Company, from an order of said court made in the same action at the same time denying its motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by Charles L. Haas, one of the defendants, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, William Louis Kelly, J. made June 24, 1893, denying his motion for a new trial. Appeal also by the plaintiff, National Investment Company, from an order of said court made in the same action at the same time denying its motion for a new trial. The National Investment Company on November 1, 1890, agreed to loan $5,875 to Mary M. Schickling, Francis M. Arbuckle and Francis M. Yager, to be secured by mortgages upon five houses and lots in Bidwell’s Addition to West St. Paul, $1,175 on each. To…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The record does not present the question which defendant Haas seeks to raise by his first assignment of error. We construe the statement in the case that the evidence was “received subject to the objection” as meaning that the court reserved its ruling upon its admissibility. If it does not mean that, then it means that the court received the evidence unconditionally, overruling plaintiff’s objection, in which case, of course, the defendant would have no ground for complaint. Where, upon the trial, the court reserves its ruling, and takes the question under advisement, the *286“case” or bill of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Herrick v. MorrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Bitzer v. BoboSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Ambuehl v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Bazille v. UllmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- McGuffin v. Coyle and GussSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1906
- Weiss v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929