Court Opinion

ID: 9793531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:49:23.559784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:54.079827
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.
I concur in the judgment. As I understand the rule now stated and applied, a plaintiff under the circumstances here shown may not, by limiting the scope of his motion for a new trial, restrict the action of the court in ruling upon it.
However, the language of the opinion is inconsistent with the decision. It is said: “ [I] f the plaintiff does not wish a complete new trial, if he cannot have a partial new trial, he need simply say so.” Where is he to “say so” ? Is he to state in his notice of motion that he is moving for a new trial on the issue of damages only? Or is he to “say so” in the presentation of the motion ?
In either event, what is the purpose of stating to the court, either in writing or orally, that the plaintiff does not wish a complete new trial if the statement is of no legal effect? The rule now laid down is that, in the situation shown by the present record, a plaintiff may not limit the action of the trial judge in ruling upon his motion. To suggest that, in some manner not specified, a plaintiff may make his wishes known to the court which is under no duty to consider them, *613is to add confusion to procedure and uncertainty in regard to the respective rights of the parties.
Also, the court points out that, by compromise, the parties may wish to stand on the judgment. In that event, why should there be any motion for a new trial 1 The obvious rule that parties to litigation may stipulate to the amount of a judgment needs no judicial recognition or approval.