Faribault Packing & Produce Co. v. Storlie

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Faribault Packing & Produce Co. v. Storlie

173 N.W. 400, 143 Minn. 486, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 545

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 18, 1919

DocketNo. 21,507

StatusPublished

This text of 173 N.W. 400 (Faribault Packing & Produce Co. v. Storlie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Faribault Packing & Produce Co. v. Storlie, 173 N.W. 400, 143 Minn. 486, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 545 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order granting a new trial. The [487]*487motion is granted. The case comes within the rule stated and applied in Heide v. Lyons, 128 Minn. 488, 151 N. W. 139. There, as in the case at har, the motion for a new trial was based upon the grounds: (1) That the verdict was not justified by the evidence; and (2) errors in law. The order granting a new trial was silent as to the grounds thereof. The order in this case is likewise silent on that point. The two cases cannot be differentiated. The provision found in G. S. 1913, § 7828, to which counsel for appellant calls attention, to the effect that the court shall not presume that an order granting a new trial which is silent as to the ground thereof was granted on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, was intended to abolish a rule of the court which permitted such presumption, and can have no effect in determining the appealable character of the order.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order granting a new trial. The [487]*487motion is granted. The case comes within the rule stated and applied in Heide v. Lyons, 128 Minn. 488, 151 N. W. 139. There, as in the case at har, the motion for a new trial was based upon the grounds: (1) That the verdict was not justified by the evidence; and (2) errors in law. The order granting a new trial was silent as to the grounds thereof. The order in this case is likewise silent on that point. The two cases cannot be differentiated. The provision found in G. S. 1913, § 7828, to which counsel for appellant calls attention, to the effect that the court shall not presume that an order granting a new trial which is silent as to the ground thereof was granted on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, was intended to abolish a rule of the court which permitted such presumption, and can have no effect in determining the appealable character of the order.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 N.W. 400, 143 Minn. 486, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faribault-packing-produce-co-v-storlie-minn-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack