Lanasa v. Pierre

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Lanasa v. Pierre

30 N.W.2d 32, 225 Minn. 189, 1947 Minn. LEXIS 590

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 19, 1947

DocketNo. 34,482.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 N.W.2d 32 (Lanasa v. Pierre) 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

Lanasa v. Pierre, 30 N.W.2d 32, 225 Minn. 189, 1947 Minn. LEXIS 590 (Mich. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

*190 Coring, Chief Justice.

This is an action for assault and battery. The jury found for plaintiff and assessed his damages at $1,250. Defendant made no motion for a directed verdict at the close of the testimony, but, after verdict was rendered, moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The ground on which the motion for new trial was based was that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law.

Such being the state of the record, the only question presented to this court is whether any verdict against defendant was justified by the evidence. M. S. A. 605.06 authorizes an alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial only when a motion is made at the close, of the testimony for a directed verdict in favor of the moving party. Raspler v. Seng, 215 Minn. 596, 11 N. W. (2d) 440.

The motion for a new triial having been made only on the ground above stated, neither errors of law nor excessive damages may be assigned as error in this court, for the reason that fundamentally this court is an appellate court. Where questions of jurisdiction are not involved, it reviews on appeal only questions which have been previously presented to the trial courts. Johnson v. Howard, 25 Minn. 558; Searles v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 285 (316). Therefore, the court’s charge, not being challenged in the motion for new trial, is not reviewable here. It has become the law of the case. The question of excessive damages cannot be raised here, because the motion for a new trial did not raise that point.

We have carefully examined the record and have found that there was evidence tending to prove that defendant was the aggressor in the altercation which occurred between the parties hereto, both in the matter of the exchange of opprobrious terms and of fisticuffs. The verdict against him is fully justified by the testimony.

Order affirmed.

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

*190 Coring, Chief Justice.

This is an action for assault and battery. The jury found for plaintiff and assessed his damages at $1,250. Defendant made no motion for a directed verdict at the close of the testimony, but, after verdict was rendered, moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The ground on which the motion for new trial was based was that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law.

Such being the state of the record, the only question presented to this court is whether any verdict against defendant was justified by the evidence. M. S. A. 605.06 authorizes an alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial only when a motion is made at the close, of the testimony for a directed verdict in favor of the moving party. Raspler v. Seng, 215 Minn. 596, 11 N. W. (2d) 440.

The motion for a new triial having been made only on the ground above stated, neither errors of law nor excessive damages may be assigned as error in this court, for the reason that fundamentally this court is an appellate court. Where questions of jurisdiction are not involved, it reviews on appeal only questions which have been previously presented to the trial courts. Johnson v. Howard, 25 Minn. 558; Searles v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 285 (316). Therefore, the court’s charge, not being challenged in the motion for new trial, is not reviewable here. It has become the law of the case. The question of excessive damages cannot be raised here, because the motion for a new trial did not raise that point.

We have carefully examined the record and have found that there was evidence tending to prove that defendant was the aggressor in the altercation which occurred between the parties hereto, both in the matter of the exchange of opprobrious terms and of fisticuffs. The verdict against him is fully justified by the testimony.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.W.2d 32, 225 Minn. 189, 1947 Minn. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanasa-v-pierre-minn-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack