The titles that they gave to their motions are inconsequential-they both were motions for new trial. A motion for new trial is a motion directed toward errors of fact or law in the trial. Hence, because the Laskers and the Clubbs sought to have the judgment set aside on the ground of trial error and that this would result in a new trial, their motion was a motion for new trial notwithstanding their calling it a motion to withdraw judgment. This means that when the circuit court denied the motion on June 19, the judgment became final. The motion that the Laskers and the Clubbs denominated a motion for new trial was still pending on June 19, having been filed the previous day, but it was not authorized.
Nothing authorizes the filing of a second motion for new trial.
Any authorized after-trial motion not ruled on at the time the motion for a new trial is determined shall be deemed overruled as of the same date. This means that we must deem the Laskers' and the Clubbs' second motion to have been overruled on June 19, not on July 6 when the circuit court entered its order denying it. Hence, the judgment in this case became final on June 19. Because June 29 was a Sunday, their notice was due on Monday, June 30. They did not filed their notice of appeal until July 13.