Court Opinion

ID: 9742685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:18:01.480172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:34.826628
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). The defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal and, on this motion for rehearing, they point out that the original opinion of this court did not make any formal disposition of such motion to dismiss.
The jury, by special verdict, found that DeLong was damaged in the amount of $25,000. Thereafter, the trial court entered the following order:
“It is further ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff Kenneth DeLong, and against the defendants ... in the sum of $14,217.39 . . . unless on or prior to May 31, 1961, the plaintiff shall . . . [elect] to have a new trial limited to the issue of damages only.”
DeLong did not make an election to have a new trial, and a judgment was subsequently entered for the reduced amount. DeLong appealed from such judgment. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is based on their contention that DeLong is foreclosed from challenging the judgment since he did not appeal from the order of the trial court. It is to be observed, however, that the order of the trial court quoted above is not an order for a new trial but, on the contrary, is an order for judgment. Had the order been one for a new trial, it would have been an appealable order, and the rule set forth in Nygaard v. Wadhams Oil Co. (1939), 231 Wis. 236, 284 N. W. 577, would have applied. However, the form of order actually employed by the trial judge was an order for judgment and not an order for a new trial. An or4er for judgment is not appealable. Jaster v. Miller (1955), 269 Wis. 223, 233, 69 N. W. (2d) 265. Accordingly, there is no merit to the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal.
The motion for rehearing is denied, with $25 costs.