Case Name: Dorothy MARSDEN, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ellis Coley Marsden, deceased, and as Trustee for the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Garry O'CALLAGHAN, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1956-04-20
Citations: 77 N.W.2d 531
Docket Number: No. 7539
Parties: Dorothy MARSDEN, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ellis Coley Marsden, deceased, and as Trustee for the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Garry O'CALLAGHAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: BURKE, C. J., and SATHRE, MORRIS and GRIMSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 77
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Dorothy MARSDEN, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ellis Coley Marsden, deceased, and as Trustee for the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Garry O'CALLAGHAN, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 7539.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
April 20, 1956.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1956.
Higgins & Donahue, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant.
William S. Murray, Bismarck, for plaintiff and respondent.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, Judge.
This action was originally brought by Ellis Coley Marsden as plaintiff. After his death, by stipulation of the parties and order of the trial court, Dorothy Mars-den, his widow, as administratrix of his estate, was substituted as plaintiff for him. The stipulation stated: "shall succeed to any right of action which the deceased might have." The cause of action did not abate by the death of the plaintiff. Section 28-01261 NDRC 1953 Suppl.
This is a companion case of Marsden v. O'Callaghan, N.D., 77 N.W.2d 522. We shall designate that case hereafter as the Marsden case. It arises out of the same facts. This case and the Marsden casé were consolidated for trial in the p district •court. Separate verdicts were rendered and separate judgments entered. Separate •appeals were taken to this court.
The complaint in this case is also based •on the alleged negligence of the defendant. The defenses in the instant case are the same as those interposed in the Marsden' case with the exception that fwo counterclaims are pleaded by the defendant in this action. '
The plaintiff recovered a verdict. After-entry of judgment the defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. The motion was based on the same grounds as those presented in the Marsden case, with two additional grounds that were neither urged nor argued upon this appeal.
The appeal to this court is from the judgment alone. The • order denying the motion for judgment' notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial "has become final. No appeal was taken therefrom. ,
The issues' raised in the instant case are controlled by the.- decision rendered in Marsden v. O'Callaghan, N.D., 77 N.W.2d 522 and on the decision of Goodman v. Mevorah, 79 N.D. 653, 59 N.W.2d 192, therein cited.
In the instant cáse. the alleged errors of law based on the refusal of the trial court to give three requested instructions were properly before the trial court-on the alternative motion for a new trial made in this case. The decision upon the motion has become res adjudicata. These alleged errors are, therefore, not before us in this case. Goodman v. Mevorah, supra.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
BURKE, C. J., and SATHRE, MORRIS and GRIMSON, JJ., concur.