Court Opinion

ID: 7968427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 00:52:50.733494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:34:42.602160
License: Public Domain

Canty, J.
I dissent. Where the trial court has misstated the law in his charge, or charged propositions of law not applicable to the case, and he is of the opinion that in fact the jury was misled thereby, it is in his discretion to grant a new trial, though no exception was taken, if, in his opinion, the taking of an exception would not have caused him to change his mind in time to obviate the mistake. In such a case the losing party has no standing at all, as a matter of right. It is merely an application for equitable relief, addressed peculiarly to the discretion of the trial courti
In New York this is carried so far as to hold that, on review at the general term of the rulings of the judge at the trial, the want of an exception is not necessarily fatal, but the general term may, in its discretion, reverse for error not saved by exception, on the ground that it is not, strictly speaking, exercising appellate jurisdiction, but has all the discretionary powers of the trial court. Baylies, New Trials & App. 125; Standard Oil Co. v. Amazon Ins. Co., 79 N. Y. 506; Mandeville v. Marvin, 30 Hun, 282; Maier v. Homan, 4 Daly, 168; Lattimer v. Hill, 8 Hun, 171; Ackart v. Lansing, 6 Hun, 476.
It is also in the discretion of the trial court to allow an exception after the jury has retired. St. John v. Kidd, 26 Cal. 267. If he has power to allow an exception after the proper time to take it, he has povrer to consider it taken for the purpose of a new trial.
This ground for new trial does not come under 1878, G. S. ch. 66, § 253, subd. 7, “Error in law occurring/ at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application,” but under the first subdivision of that section, “Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, referee or prevailing party or any order of the court or referee or *449abuse of discretion by which the moving party was prevented from having a fair trial.”
The discretionary power exercised by the court below in this case is one which a trial court, having due regard for the rights of the prevailing party will seldom exercise. It is only when he is satisfied that in fact the particular mistake produced a wrong result and that the failure to except did not prejudice the prevailing party and where he is satisfied that his rulings would have been the same, and that nothing would have been done by him or the prevailing party in time to obviate the mistake even if an exception had been taken. Even viewed by this strict rule I cannot see that the order granting a new trial was an abuse of discretion, and hold that the order appealed from should be affirmed.
Since the above was written the majority opinion has been rewritten. It is now admitted that at common law it was in the discretion of the trial court to grant a new trial for errors to which no exception was taken, but it is insisted that by the adoption of the Code this discretionary power has been cut off. It has seldom before been held that the discretionary power of a trial court of general jurisdiction has been cut off by the Code. The Code is a mere skeleton, and much of it merely declaratory of the common law. Especially is this true as to its provisions regulating practice. We do not look to it for the discretionary powers of the District Court, as we do to the justice of the peace practice act for the discretionary power of that court. On the contrary, it is not unusual to look to the great sources of authority on common law and equity practice to ascertain what the discretionary powers of our District Court are.
The point is also now made for the first time that the motion for a new trial was not made on the grounds stated in the first subdivision of section 253, but on those stated in the fifth and seventh subdivisions. As to this I will say many able judges, in times past, have often set aside verdicts on their own motion, even before the ink was dry on them, and without any motion or grounds of motion being made or stated by the party at all; and the right to do so has hardly been questioned. At common law the trial court had the power to grant a new trial, no matter how informal the application for it might be, or how much the moving party had waived his technical rights by failing to take the proper exception, or to put the proper *450grounds, or any grounds at all, in his motion. When, as in the present case, a formal motion for a new trial is made, stating the grounds, it will not be presumed that it was granted on any grounds except those stated. It must affirmatively appear that it was granted on some other grounds, which it does in this case. It is a new doctrine that a trial court of general jurisdiction has no discretion to brush aside technical informalities, and prevent injustice, by granting a new trial. It has always been held that it is in the discretion of the trial court to see that injustice was not done during the progress of a trial, or afterwards, before the entry of judgment, either through its own mistakes, or the technical laches of the attorney. To sustain the position of the majority, Hayne, New Trial, is cited several times. This work is devoted exclusively to the practice as established by the California Code and decisions, rarely citing any other cases. He cites no case which sustains their position. They cite none, and I am able to find none. On the contrary, the authorities in the Code states agree with the common law on this question. Thus, in Farr v. Fuller, 8 Iowa, 347, the trial court granted a new trial for errors in its charge, not excepted to. The supreme court held it was discretionary. As in this case, the evidence was not returned on appeal, and the appellant claimed that no error appeared in the charge; but the supreme court held that, in favor of the order granting a new trial, it would be presumed that, as applied to the evidence, the charge was erroneous. It is also held in Cheatham v. Roberts, 23 Ark. 651, that it is in the discretion of the trial court to grant a new trial for error not excepted to.
The point is also now made that section 254 provides that when the motion for a new trial is made on the fourth, fifth, and seventh subdivisions of section 253, “it is made either on a bill of exceptions or a statement of the case prepared as prescribed in the next section, for any other cause it is made on affidavit,” and that, therefore, this by necessary implication cuts off the common-law practice, under which the court often acted on its own knowledge of what took place in its presence during the trial, and granted or denied a new trial without regard to whether or not such knowledge was either supported or contradicted by any such affidavits. If this was purely a statutory proceeding, the position of the majority would be correct, but it is not a mere statutory proceeding. The provision that in some cases *451a motion for a new trial shall he made on a case or hill of exceptions, and in others on affidavit, is simply declaratory of the common law. Such statutes do not cut off other common-law remedies, unless such other remedies are expressly prohibited. Thus, on the principles laid down by the majority, title 11 of chapter 66, prescribing the practice on application for injunction, and providing only for the temporary writ and the permanent writ, would, by necessary implication, cut off the old equity power to issue a restraining order pending the motion, but the contrary practice is well established in this state. On the same principle, on an appeal from the clerk on taxation of costs under 1878 G. S. ch. 67, § 8, the judge who tried the case could not look into the proceedings on the trial, or beyond the affidavits used on the taxation. But the contrary practice is well established. The judge practica&y disregards the affidavits on the question of materiality when the witnesses were sworn, and acts on his own knowledge of the proceedings had and testimony given on the trial, just as he did at common law. It is unnecessary to multiply illustrations. The judge who tried the case is not bound, by virtue of the statute; to know as little about the case after trial as the average juror is required to know before it. He is not obliged to stultify himself, and know nothing of what he saw or heard on the trial, except what the parties see fit to state to him in affidavits.
But the judge’s powers and the applicant’s rights are, in this respect, very different questions. The moving party not only fails to save his rights for review in the appellate court, by failing to make them appear of record, and to cover them in his grounds of motion, but he also runs the risk of having his motion denied on technical grounds, merely, by the trial court, which it usually will and ought to do. But notwithstanding this, in furtherance of justice, the trial court may relieve him from his laches, by giving him something which he asked for, but was not in a position to demand as of right. And when it affirmatively appears that the court, in granting him a new trial, has, in furtherance of justice, intentionally relieved him from his technical laches and omissions, it is merely a question whether or not, on common-law principles, it has abused its discretion. In this case it seems to me that it has not
(Opinion published 59 N. W. 534.)