Sellers v. Taylor
Sellers v. Taylor
Opinion
In an automobile collision case the jury returned a verdict for defendant. Immediately thereafter the trial court on its own initiative set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. 1 Defendant has appealed from that order.
Our first question is the appealablity of an order granting a new trial. Our jurisdiction, with exceptions not here material, is limited to review of final orders and judgments. 2 An order granting a new trial is not a final order and we have consistently held that such order is not appeal-able. 3 Appellant cites numerous authorities holding that an order granting or denying a new trial may be reviewed on appeal, but such review is had only on appeal from a final judgment. 4 If claim were made that the trial court in granting the new trial exceeded its authority, perhaps we would have another question, 5 but the claim here is merely that the trial court improperly exercised its acknowledged authority.
Appeal dismissed.
. Municipal Court Civil Rule 59 (e).
. Code 1951, § 11-772.
. Phillips v. Marvin’s Credit, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 85 A.2d 825; United Retail Cleaners & Tailors Ass’n of D. C. v. Denahan, D.C.Mun.App., 44 A.2d 69; De Grazia v. Anderson, D.C.Mun.App., 58 A.2d 306.
. Students Book Co. v. Semerjian, D.C.Mun.App., 66 A.2d 487.
. See Harco, Inc., v. Greenville Steel and Foundry Co., D.C.Mun.App., 112 A.2d 920; but cf. Freid v. McGrath, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 133 F.2d 350.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.