Kimball v. Palmerlee
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Dodge ■county, Buckham, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The action was tried April 5, 1881, judgment was entered October 20,1881, and the motion for a new trial was heard January 16, 1882, on notice given December 21, 1881.
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
The motion for a new trial in this case was not made till after judgment entered. The respondent objects that a motion for a new trial in a case tried by a jury is too late after judgment, and that the motion ought on that ground to have been denied, without regard to the merits. The statute gives the right to make such a motion, but it cannot be supposed that it may be exercised without regard to the time of its exercise, and the statute fixes no limit of time except where it is made on the judge’s minutes. Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, §§ 253, 254.
In Groh v. Bassett, 7 Minn. 254, (325,) the court…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Schuek v. HagarSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Conklin v. HindsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Cochrane v. HalseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
3Cited by15 opinions
- Noonan v. SpearSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- In Re Estate of HoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Worrlein v. MaierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Ayer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.