Court Opinion

ID: 9734041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:23:35.608425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:45.253019
License: Public Domain

Boyles, J.
(concurring in part). I agree with Mr. Justice Dethmers that the writ should be denied for the first reason stated in his opinion, namely, that appeal in the nature of mandamus ought not to have been allowed. In this case, a final judgment of no *211cause for action was entered in the trial court on the motion by the defendant for entry of a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. That was a final judgment from which the plaintiffs had a right of appeal as of course. Court Rule No 57 (1945).
I am not in accord with determining the case on its merits in this appeal in the nature of mandamus. In the abbreviated record filed here, limited to the issue on an appeal in the nature of mandamus, we do not have the complete record which we would otherwise have if this w’ere here on general appeal. Consequently, I wmuld deny the writ and remand the case to the trial court, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to file and have determined either a motion to set aside the judgment, a motion for entry of judgment on the verdict, a motion for a new trial, or the right to take a general appeal. In the absence of a record here on general appeal, I am unable to decide whether other grounds, if any, on which the plaintiffs relied in their declaration, were supported by testimony and properly submitted to the jury, resulting in verdict for the plaintiffs.
Appeal dismissed and remanded, without prejudice. No costs should be awarded.
Smith, J., concurred with Boyles, J.