Newton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Newton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.

240 N.W. 470, 186 Minn. 437, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 916

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 12, 1932

DocketNos. 28,708, 28,709.

StatusPublished

This text of 240 N.W. 470 (Newton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.) 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

Newton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co., 240 N.W. 470, 186 Minn. 437, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 916 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

*438 Per Curiam.

These actions are to recover for personal injuries. Verdicts were rendered for the defendant. Plaintiff’s motions for new trials were denied.

After the return was made to this court the defendant moved the lower court to amend the settled case by including as part thereof the argument to the jury made by counsel for plaintiff.

The trial court granted the motion to amend the settled case over the objection of the plaintiff on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction so to do. The trial court, deeming the question involved to be important and doubtful, certified the same to this court for a decision thereon.

G-. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 10756, authorizes certain questions to be certified when important or doubtful in criminal cases, but it does not authorize the certification of such questions in civil actions. We do not know of any statute conferring such authority, and we are of the opinion that the trial court was without authority so to certify said question, and we therefore decline to consider it. The trial court may allow a settled case after an appeal has been perfected, and where a settled case has not been allowed within the statutory period the court may, for good cause, grant an extension of time therefor; and the matter of granting or denying such an application lies in the discretion of the trial court. We assume that the settled case has been amended. The only determination however that we make is that the trial court does not have jurisdiction to certify the question to us.

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

*438 Per Curiam.

These actions are to recover for personal injuries. Verdicts were rendered for the defendant. Plaintiff’s motions for new trials were denied.

After the return was made to this court the defendant moved the lower court to amend the settled case by including as part thereof the argument to the jury made by counsel for plaintiff.

The trial court granted the motion to amend the settled case over the objection of the plaintiff on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction so to do. The trial court, deeming the question involved to be important and doubtful, certified the same to this court for a decision thereon.

G-. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 10756, authorizes certain questions to be certified when important or doubtful in criminal cases, but it does not authorize the certification of such questions in civil actions. We do not know of any statute conferring such authority, and we are of the opinion that the trial court was without authority so to certify said question, and we therefore decline to consider it. The trial court may allow a settled case after an appeal has been perfected, and where a settled case has not been allowed within the statutory period the court may, for good cause, grant an extension of time therefor; and the matter of granting or denying such an application lies in the discretion of the trial court. We assume that the settled case has been amended. The only determination however that we make is that the trial court does not have jurisdiction to certify the question to us.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 N.W. 470, 186 Minn. 437, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-minneapolis-street-railway-co-minn-1932.