Gednalski v. Dell Rapids Quarry Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Gednalski v. Dell Rapids Quarry Co.

20 N.W.2d 226, 70 S.D. 616, 1945 S.D. LEXIS 68

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 10, 1945

DocketFile No. 8797.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 20 N.W.2d 226 (Gednalski v. Dell Rapids Quarry Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gednalski v. Dell Rapids Quarry Co., 20 N.W.2d 226, 70 S.D. 616, 1945 S.D. LEXIS 68 (S.D. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for damages which was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed from the judgment and seeks to review in this court the sufficiency of the evidence, first, on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment for the reason that such evidence shows that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, second, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the amount of damages awarded by the jury. The trial court submitted the case to the jury under instructions to which no exceptions were taken by the defendant. Nor did the defendant submit any requests for instructions. There was no motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a new trial and there is nothing in the record in the way of offer, objection, or exception which presented to the trial court the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.

*617 SDC 33.1605 provides as one of the grounds for granting a new trial “(6) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision or that it is against law.” SDC 33.1607 provides that “An application for a new trial shall not be necessary as a prerequisite to obtain appellate review as to matters specified in subdivisions (6) and (7) of section 33.1605, and all of such matters may be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment, regardless of whether a motion for a new trial has been made, provided such matter has been submitted to the trial court as prescribed in section 33.0710.” SDC 33.0710 to which reference is made in the above-quoted SDC 33.1607 prescribes “Such of the matters specified in subdivisions (6) and (7) of section 33.1605 as may have been timely presented to the trial court by motion for directed verdict, request for findings, or other apt motion, offer, objection or exception may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment without necessity for an application for new trial.”

A noncompliance with the statutory provisions quoted above precludes a review by this court of the questions tendered by appellant’s brief. Upon the record here presented the judgment appealed from must be and is affirmed.

All the Judges concur. HAYES, C. J., sitting for POLLEY, J.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for damages which was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed from the judgment and seeks to review in this court the sufficiency of the evidence, first, on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment for the reason that such evidence shows that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, second, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the amount of damages awarded by the jury. The trial court submitted the case to the jury under instructions to which no exceptions were taken by the defendant. Nor did the defendant submit any requests for instructions. There was no motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a new trial and there is nothing in the record in the way of offer, objection, or exception which presented to the trial court the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.

*617 SDC 33.1605 provides as one of the grounds for granting a new trial “(6) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision or that it is against law.” SDC 33.1607 provides that “An application for a new trial shall not be necessary as a prerequisite to obtain appellate review as to matters specified in subdivisions (6) and (7) of section 33.1605, and all of such matters may be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment, regardless of whether a motion for a new trial has been made, provided such matter has been submitted to the trial court as prescribed in section 33.0710.” SDC 33.0710 to which reference is made in the above-quoted SDC 33.1607 prescribes “Such of the matters specified in subdivisions (6) and (7) of section 33.1605 as may have been timely presented to the trial court by motion for directed verdict, request for findings, or other apt motion, offer, objection or exception may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment without necessity for an application for new trial.”

A noncompliance with the statutory provisions quoted above precludes a review by this court of the questions tendered by appellant’s brief. Upon the record here presented the judgment appealed from must be and is affirmed.

All the Judges concur. HAYES, C. J., sitting for POLLEY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.W.2d 226, 70 S.D. 616, 1945 S.D. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gednalski-v-dell-rapids-quarry-co-sd-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack