Muggenburg v. Leighton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Muggenburg v. Leighton

57 N.W.2d 658, 239 Minn. 565, 1953 Minn. LEXIS 663

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 27, 1953

Docket35,956, 35,957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 N.W.2d 658 (Muggenburg v. Leighton) 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

Muggenburg v. Leighton, 57 N.W.2d 658, 239 Minn. 565, 1953 Minn. LEXIS 663 (Mich. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs in these actions sued all of the defendants as joint tortfeasors to recover damages for personal injuries. The jury returned verdicts in favor of plaintiffs against defendants Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Company and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter called the railway companies, and in favor of defendant Leighton. Thereafter, the railway-company defendants moved for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict; if that were denied, that judgment be entered against Leighton; and, if those motions were denied, for a new trial. The court denied all motions. An appeal was taken in each action from the order denying such motions. Thereafter, the railway-company defendants made a settlement with plaintiffs. Defendant Leighton now moves to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the order is not appealable as to him and that the questions raised by the appeal have become moot as against plaintiffs.

*566 The questions raised by the motion now before us are of considerable importance and doubtful.

It is ordered that the motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to the rights of the moving party to renew the motion when the case is heard on the merits. It is further ordered that the questions raised by the motion may be argued orally at the same time that the case is argued on the merits.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs in these actions sued all of the defendants as joint tortfeasors to recover damages for personal injuries. The jury returned verdicts in favor of plaintiffs against defendants Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Company and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter called the railway companies, and in favor of defendant Leighton. Thereafter, the railway-company defendants moved for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict; if that were denied, that judgment be entered against Leighton; and, if those motions were denied, for a new trial. The court denied all motions. An appeal was taken in each action from the order denying such motions. Thereafter, the railway-company defendants made a settlement with plaintiffs. Defendant Leighton now moves to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the order is not appealable as to him and that the questions raised by the appeal have become moot as against plaintiffs.

*566 The questions raised by the motion now before us are of considerable importance and doubtful.

It is ordered that the motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to the rights of the moving party to renew the motion when the case is heard on the merits. It is further ordered that the questions raised by the motion may be argued orally at the same time that the case is argued on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 N.W.2d 658, 239 Minn. 565, 1953 Minn. LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muggenburg-v-leighton-minn-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack