Minnesota Supreme Court, 1875

State v. Ehrig

State v. Ehrig
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 20, 1875 · Cornell
21 Minn. 462; 1875 Minn. LEXIS 150 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Wilson & Lawrence, for appellant., Geo. JP. Wilson, Attorney General, for the State.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1970, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

State v. Ehrig

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Cornell, J.

The record before us shows that defendant Charles Ehrig, on a separate trial upon an indictment for larceny, was found guilty by the verdict of a jury, which also found the value of the stolen property to be one hundred and five dollars : that what purports to be a statement of the case, comprising the evidence and proceedings therein, was made and allowed by the judge of the trial court; but no motion for a new trial or otherwise has ever been made in that court, nor has any judgment been rendered and entered on the verdict. It does not appear that any question of law, of any character, has ever been suggested, or attempted to be raised in the trial court; but the defendant has taken an appeal to this court from such verdict, on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support it.

The appellate jurisdiction of this court can only be exercised in the maimer prescribed by law, and in accordance with its recognized rules of practice and procedure. Mere acquiescence and consent of parties will not confer upon it jurisdiction or authority to take cognizance of a case not properly and legally before it; and whenever such a case is apparent upon the face of the record, it is incumbent upon the court to notice it.

A criminal case can be removed to this court, by appeal, only after the decision of a motion denying a new trial, or after a judgment. § 1, ch. 117, Gen. Stat., as amended by ch. 76, Laws 1870. There is no provision of statute, nor ride of practice, allowing an appeal to be taken from a verdict. Hence the appeal in this case must be dismissed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.