Court Opinion

ID: 9726943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:13:45.045124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:32.053949
License: Public Domain

Upon Petition for Rehearing.
On April 18, 1952, the following opinion was filed:
Per Curiam.
Defendant Anselmo has petitioned for rehearing on the ground that this court failed to pass upon his contention that defendants Nelson were negligent as a matter of law and that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury accordingly.
*245These questions were not properly presented by defendant Anselmo’s assignments of error. See, 1 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 363. Moreover, since the jury found defendants Nelson negligent, and since plaintiff and defendants Nelson, not having appealed, apparently are satisfied with the results of the trial, it is unnecessary for us to consider either of these questions. To do so would be obiter dictum. The rights and liabilities of the defendants inter se were not litigated at the trial by cross claim or otherwise. Accordingly, even if error in this respect be assumed, defendant Anselmo is in no position to complain. Merrill v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 170 Minn. 332, 212 N. W. 533; Erickson v. Northland Transp. Co. 181 Minn. 406, 232 N. W. 715; Olson v. Neubauer, 211 Minn. 218, 300 N. W. 613; McGillivray v. G. N. Ry. Co. 145 Minn. 51, 176 N. W. 200. See, Bunge v. Yager, 236 Minn. 245, 52 N. W. (2d) 446.
Petition for rehearing denied.