O'Rourke v. O'Rourke
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the decision in the former appeal reported in 130 Minn. 222, 153 N. W. 607, the case was tried before Converse, J., who granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to establish any cause of action against them. From the order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, J.
After our decision reversing an order .denying a new trial, reported in 130 Minn. 292, 153 N. W. 607, this case came on for trial in the court below. Plaintiff rested without offering any evidence. Defendants moved to dismiss, and the court granted this motion. Plaintiff afterwards moved for a new trial, the motion was denied, and plaintiff appealed.
The question is as to the effect of the reversal on the former appeal. *6That appeal was from an order denying a new trial, and the judgment of this court was simply that the order was reversed. This court did not in express terms grant a new trial…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kurtz v. St. Paul & Duluth RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Minnesota Land & Immigration Co. v. MunchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Babcock v. MurraySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Cool v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- O'Rourke v. O'RourkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Nash v. KirschoffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- State ex rel. National Council of Knights & Ladies of Security v. BrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916