History
  • No items yet
midpage
Jensen v. Fischer
132 Minn. 475
Minn.
1916
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Motion by the plaintiff, the appellant, to remand to the -district court to enable him to renevi a motion for a new trial upon the ground of new evidence discovered since the appeal.

This court has jurisdiction to remand a case to enable the appellant to renew his motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence arising since the appeal. Kroning v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 96 Minn. 128, 104 N. W. 888.

In determining whether a motion to remand should be granted we are limited to an inquiry whether the showing made is such that the moving party -should have the opportunity to present his motion to the trial court. Upon an examination of the affidavits we are of the opinion that- the appellant has made such showing. We do not consider the merits. The granting of the motion is not a suggestion of what result should follow. The trial court will proceed as in ordinary cases and under rules which are well understood.

It is ordered that the case be remanded to the district court to enable the appellant to renew his motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence. If the motion is granted the remand will be absolute. If denied the proceedings will be certified to this court ;as a part of the return. All proceedings will be conducted without unnecessary delay.

Motion granted.

Case Details

Case Name: Jensen v. Fischer
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Apr 20, 1916
Citation: 132 Minn. 475
Docket Number: No. 19,899
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.