100 Minn. 144 | Minn. | 1907
While the first appeal herein was pending in this court, the defendant made a motion, which was heard on an order to show cause, to remand the case to the district court to enable the defendant to amend and renew its motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which was to the effect that since the appeal was taken the defendant had learned that the plaintiff had assigned his verdict. The motion was denied and the order appealed from affirmed and the case remanded. (Supra, p. 1, 110 N. W. 97.) When the case reached
It must be conceded that the appeal was taken by counsel in good faith and in the belief that the denial of their motion in this court was not upon the merits; hence they had a right to renew it in the district court. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that the trial court clearly Was right in denying the motion, for the order in this court was made on the merits. Such being the case, the second appeal does not present any substantial question for our decision and must be dismissed. Johnson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 408, 71 N. W. 619.
Ordered that the appeal be, and hereby is, dismissed.