History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wendelsdorf v. County of Martin
20 N.W.2d 528
Minn.
1945
Check Treatment
Per. Curiam.

On this appeal from a judgment, the only errors assigned by plaintiff are two rulings of the trial court concerning the admission of testimony and the order of the court dismissing the action at the close of plaintiff’s case.

No exception was taken to the rulings on the admission of evidence nor to the order dismissing the action. There was no motion for a new trial and hence no assignment of error in the court below.

It is now well settled in this state that error, if any, in a ruling on the trial may not be reviewed on appeal from a judgment if appellant did not take an exception to the ruling on the trial or *615 assign it as error in a motion for a new trial. Winning v. Timm, 210 Minn. 270, 297 N. W. 739. See, also, Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170, 19 N. W. (2d) 327.

Therefore, the questions raised by plaintiff are not properly before us.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Wendelsdorf v. County of Martin
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Nov 9, 1945
Citation: 20 N.W.2d 528
Docket Number: No. 34,090.
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.