Minnesota Supreme Court, 1891

Little v. Leighton

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 12, 1891 · Mitchell

46 Minn. 201; 48 N.W. 778; 1891 Minn. LEXIS 280 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

M. M. Madigan, for appellant., H. L. Hayden, for respondent.

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 1950, 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

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Bennett v. Johnson (Minn. 1950)
Kolb v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1949)
Crawford v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. (Minn. 1945)
Nelson v. Auman (Minn. 1944)
In re Guardianship of Jaus (Minn. 1936)
Barrett v. Smith (Minn. 1931)
Worrlein v. Maier (Minn. 1929)

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

Mitchell, J.

The practice followed in this case in the district court was so irregular, and the record in this court so confused, that it is a labor of some difficulty to determine just what this appeal is. As nearly as we can gather from the record, the following is the situation : After verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant caused a “case” to be settled containing all the evidence, except the note sued on and the certificate of its protest, and then moved for a'new trial, which was denied. He then made a motion to have the settled case amended, which was also denied. He subsequently asked for leave to renew his motion to amend the settled case, which was granted. He then made a motion to amend the settled ease, and for leave on such amended case to renew his former motion .for a new trial, and that the order denying his former motion for a new trial be vacated, and that the court again determine the motion on the amended case. „The court made an order amending the “case,” by attaching thereto copies of the note and certificate of protest, (it being claimed that the originals were lost,) but in all otter respects denying defendant’s motion. The appeal- is from this order refusing leave to renew the motion for a new trial, and refusing to vacate *202the former order denying a new trial. In so far as the order is one refusing leave to renew a motion previously made and denied, the matter was one addressed to the sound discretion of the court; and we think that the facts disclosed by the record show that, so far from that discretion being abused in this case, it was wisely exercised. In so far as the order was one refusing to set aside and vacate the order denying a new trial, (which was itself appealable,) it was not an appealable order.

Order affirmed.

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