Sellers v. Taylor

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Sellers v. Taylor

117 A.2d 394, 1955 D.C. App. LEXIS 211

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1955

Docket1679

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 117 A.2d 394 (Sellers v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sellers v. Taylor, 117 A.2d 394, 1955 D.C. App. LEXIS 211 (D.C. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOD, Associate Judge.

In an automobile collision case the jury returned a verdict for defendant. Immediately thereafter the trial court on its own initiative set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. 1 Defendant has appealed from that order.

Our first question is the appealablity of an order granting a new trial. Our jurisdiction, with exceptions not here material, is limited to review of final orders and judgments. 2 An order granting a new trial is not a final order and we have consistently held that such order is not appeal-able. 3 Appellant cites numerous authorities holding that an order granting or denying a new trial may be reviewed on appeal, but such review is had only on appeal from a final judgment. 4 If claim were made that the trial court in granting the new trial exceeded its authority, perhaps we would have another question, 5 but the claim here is merely that the trial court improperly exercised its acknowledged authority.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. Municipal Court Civil Rule 59 (e).

2

. Code 1951, § 11-772.

3

. Phillips v. Marvin’s Credit, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 85 A.2d 825; United Retail Cleaners & Tailors Ass’n of D. C. v. Denahan, D.C.Mun.App., 44 A.2d 69; De Grazia v. Anderson, D.C.Mun.App., 58 A.2d 306.

4

. Students Book Co. v. Semerjian, D.C.Mun.App., 66 A.2d 487.

5

. See Harco, Inc., v. Greenville Steel and Foundry Co., D.C.Mun.App., 112 A.2d 920; but cf. Freid v. McGrath, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 133 F.2d 350.

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

HOOD, Associate Judge.

In an automobile collision case the jury returned a verdict for defendant. Immediately thereafter the trial court on its own initiative set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. 1 Defendant has appealed from that order.

Our first question is the appealablity of an order granting a new trial. Our jurisdiction, with exceptions not here material, is limited to review of final orders and judgments. 2 An order granting a new trial is not a final order and we have consistently held that such order is not appeal-able. 3 Appellant cites numerous authorities holding that an order granting or denying a new trial may be reviewed on appeal, but such review is had only on appeal from a final judgment. 4 If claim were made that the trial court in granting the new trial exceeded its authority, perhaps we would have another question, 5 but the claim here is merely that the trial court improperly exercised its acknowledged authority.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. Municipal Court Civil Rule 59 (e).

2

. Code 1951, § 11-772.

3

. Phillips v. Marvin’s Credit, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 85 A.2d 825; United Retail Cleaners & Tailors Ass’n of D. C. v. Denahan, D.C.Mun.App., 44 A.2d 69; De Grazia v. Anderson, D.C.Mun.App., 58 A.2d 306.

4

. Students Book Co. v. Semerjian, D.C.Mun.App., 66 A.2d 487.

5

. See Harco, Inc., v. Greenville Steel and Foundry Co., D.C.Mun.App., 112 A.2d 920; but cf. Freid v. McGrath, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 133 F.2d 350.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.2d 394, 1955 D.C. App. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sellers-v-taylor-dc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack