¶1This is a motion to amend the judgment herein remanding this case to the district court, so as to conform to the statute in such case made and provided. The judgment is not technically a compliance with the statute, in that it does not, in express terms, direct a new trial, but the appeal was from a judgment which was reversed on the ground that the verdict and judgment were not sustained by the evidence, and case remanded to the district court. The necessary legal effect of such action was to remand the case for a new trial. It follows that the proposed amendment, even if it were conceded that we had jurisdiction to make it, is unnecessary, and therefore the motion is denied.
93 Minn. 187
State v. Ames
Decided October 10, 1904
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1904-10-10
Motion by plaintiff to amend a judgment of the supreme court entered upon the appeal of defendant (reported in 91 Minn. 365), so as to provide expressly for a new trial.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1943
2 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““The judgment is not technically a compliance with the statute, in that it does not, in express terms, direct a new trial, but the appeal was from a judgment which was reversed on the ground that the verdict and judgment were not sustained by the evidence, and case remanded to the district court. The necessary legal effect of such action was to remand the case for a new trial. It follows that the proposed amendment, even if it were conceded that we had jurisdiction to make it, is unnecessary, and therefore the motion is denied.””
quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Peterson
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Motion denied · Decided 1904-10-10
View the full empirical analysis of this case →