Fyfe v. Great Northern Railway Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court
Fyfe v. Great Northern Railway Co., 25 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. 1946)
222 Minn. 490; 1946 Minn. LEXIS 567
PER CURIAM.

Can I rely on this case?

Yes — no negative treatment found

Based on 3 citing opinions

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

Fyfe v. Great Northern Railway Co.

Opinion of the Court

*491 Pee Cubiam.

This is a motion by the intervener, Marjory Ruth Hill, who is appellant herein, to remand the case to the district court of Henne-pin county to enable her to renew her motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence arising during the pendency of the appeal in this action.

From our examination of the affidavit and other documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion, we are impelled to the view that appellant should have an opportunity to present such newly discovered evidence to the district court on a motion for a new trial. As authority for granting such motion to remand upon proper showing, see Jensen v. Fischer, 132 Minn. 475, 157 N. W. 498; Kroning v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 96 Minn. 128, 104 N. W. 888.

The motion is granted, and it is ordered that the case be remanded to the district court of Hennepin county to enable appellant to renew her motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. It is further ordered that in the event such court grants the motion this remand shall thereupon become absolute, but if the motion is denied the order denying it, together with the proceedings relating thereto, shall be certified as part of the return to this court as expeditiously as possible for further proceedings in this court upon the appeal pending herein.

Reference

Full Case Name
Robert Y. Fyfe v. Great Northern Railway Company. Marjory Ruth Hill, Intervener. Myron H. Savidge, Lien Claimant, Respondent
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published