Schmidt v. Potter

184 N.W. 357, 44 S.D. 526, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 155
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 16, 1921
DocketFile No. 4890
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 N.W. 357 (Schmidt v. Potter) 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
Schmidt v. Potter, 184 N.W. 357, 44 S.D. 526, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 155 (S.D. 1921).

Opinion

GATES, J.

The trial of this cause was had to the court and jury and resulted in verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Upon the motion of defendants the court granted a new trial “for the reasons urged in the motion for new trial and for the further reason that the court is of the opinion that in the interests of justice a new.trial should be granted.” Rule 30 of the Rules for Trial -Courts of Record (40 S. D. preliminary page 29) provides:

“The trial court, when granting a motion for new trial, shall, in its order, specify each and every ground upon which it bases such order; all grounds urged upon such motion and not specified in the order shall be deemed to have been overruled by the trial court.”

- The sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in granting a new trial because “the opinion of the trial court that a new trial should be granted in the ‘interests of justice’ is not a ground for granting a new -trial.” As the 'basis for this assignfent it is argued that, because the trial court did not “specify each and every ground upon which it based its order,” it must be inferred that the court denied each and every ground specified as -error upon the motion for new trial. While the form of the order does not comply with the spirit of the rule and is not to be commended, we can only infer that the trial court granted the motion [528]*528for all of the reasons urged upon the motion for new trial as well as in the interest of justice. It is therefore unimportant to the determination of this appeal whether the trial court had or had not power to grant a new trial solely “in the interests of justice.”

The order granting a new trial is affirmed.

SMITH and McCOY, J'J., not sitting.

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

Related

Houck v. Hult
235 N.W. 512 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 N.W. 357, 44 S.D. 526, 1921 S.D. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-potter-sd-1921.