Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Smith

In my view, the opinion of the majority misconceives the nature of the relief sought by plaintiff, and fails to apply the applicable and controlling statute. Further, I cannot understand the reasoning behind the holding of the majority that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider must be treated as a motion for a new trial.

The simple fact is that plaintiff did not ask for a new trial. The motion to reconsider filed by plaintiff is as follows:

“Comes now the plaintiff, Mildred Mae Brunn, by and through her attorney, Charles E. Payne, and does move that the Journal Entry of Judgment signed by Judge…