Court Opinion

ID: 9711375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:30:31.953754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:04.358106
License: Public Domain

Wenke, J.,
concurring.
The last paragraph of the dissent requires clarification. In Krepcik v. Interstate Transit Lines, ante p. 98, 43 N. W. 2d 609, it was for the first time decided by this court that the granting of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under the circumstances there shown had the effect of overruling the motion fop a new trial. Consequently, any claimed error in the action of the trial court in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in overruling the motion for a new trial must be assigned as error on appeal to receive the consideration of this court as required by the rules of practice in the Supreme Court. Rules 8 a2 (4), 8 b2.
In the Krepcik case, it being a case of first impression, this court, on request, permitted the filing of a supplemental brief setting forth supplemental assignments of error with respect to the overruling of the motion for a new trial for the reason that the appellee had no *360cause to believe previously that it was necessary to do so at that stage of the proceedings.
In the present case the áppellee filed its brief on June 29, 1950. On July 19, 1950, the opinion of this court in the Krepcik case was handed down. The point here involved was mentioned in appellee’s brief and the appellee referred the court to the Krepcik case, then pending, for the answer. From July 19, 1950, until September 27, 1950, the date the present case was argued before this court, the appellee did not request leave to file supplemental briefs nor present in any manner any claimed errors resulting from the overruling of the motion for a new trial, although it knew or ought to have known the necessity for so doing if error was to be predicated thereon. To this day the appellee has never claimed any error in the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The dissent asserts for the appellee a right not only to which it is not entitled, but one which appellee itself has never presented in'the appeal. The case before us is clearly distinguishable from the Krepcik case.