Wendelsdorf v. County of Martin

20 N.W.2d 528, 220 Minn. 614, 1945 Minn. LEXIS 559
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedNovember 9, 1945
DocketNo. 34,090.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 20 N.W.2d 528 (Wendelsdorf v. County of Martin) 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
Wendelsdorf v. County of Martin, 20 N.W.2d 528, 220 Minn. 614, 1945 Minn. LEXIS 559 (Mich. 1945).

Opinion

Per. Curiam.

On this appeal from a judgment, the only errors assigned by plaintiff are two rulings of the trial court concerning the admission of testimony and the order of the court dismissing the action at the close of plaintiff’s case.

No exception was taken to the rulings on the admission of evidence nor to the order dismissing the action. There was no motion for a new trial and hence no assignment of error in the court below.

It is now well settled in this state that error, if any, in a ruling on the trial may not be reviewed on appeal from a judgment if appellant did not take an exception to the ruling on the trial or *615 assign it as error in a motion for a new trial. Winning v. Timm, 210 Minn. 270, 297 N. W. 739. See, also, Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170, 19 N. W. (2d) 327.

Therefore, the questions raised by plaintiff are not properly before us.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Sauter v. Wasemiller
364 N.W.2d 833 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)
LeMay v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.
71 N.W.2d 826 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1955)
Welsh v. Barnes-Duluth Shipbuilding Co.
21 N.W.2d 43 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 N.W.2d 528, 220 Minn. 614, 1945 Minn. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendelsdorf-v-county-of-martin-minn-1945.