TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Colby v. McDermont

William Colby v. F. H. McDermont

Colby v. McDermont, 71 N.W. 772 (N.D. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
North Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 1, 1897
Judges
Corliss
Citations
71 N.W. 7726 N.D. 4951897 N.D. LEXIS 26
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Appeal — -Waiver of Objections. Where defendant, after his motion to direct a verdict is overruled, introduces evidence in the case, and then fails to renew his motion at the close of the case, he is not in a position to claim that the court erred in denying his motion. Error Cannot be Predicated on Charge to Which no Exception Was Taken. No portion of the charge having been excepted to, the defendant cannot predicate error upon instructions to the jury. Specification of Particulars Wherein Evidence Fails to Sustain Verdict. The question of the insufficiency of the evidence not having been raised in this court by a proper assignment of error, such question will not be considered.
Summary
Appeal from District Court, Grand Forks County; Templeton, J. Action by William Colby against F. H. McDermont. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Corliss

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Corliss, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, and from a judgment based upon a verdict. The appellant is not in position to claim that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in his favor. Such motion was made at the close of the plaintiff’s case. After it was overruled, the defendant introduced evidence to support his defense. Having failed to renew his motion at the close of the case, he waived the error, if any, committed by the court in overruling his motion at *496 the end of plaintiff’s case. Bowman v. Eppinger, 1 N. D. 21 , 44 N. W. Rep. 1000 . The appellant is not in position to complain of the charge of the court, he not having taken any exception to any portion thereof. So far as he essays to raise the question that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, the answer to his contention in this respect is that his assignments of error in this court do not relate to any such point! On the contrary, in the only assignment of errors which can possibly be held to raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellant studiously excludes the idea that he desires to challenge the sufficiency thereof, by asserting that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, for the reasons and on the grounds specifically set forth in the preceding assignments of error, all of which assignments relate to errors in law occurring at the trial, and not to the insufficiency of the evidence. We deem it in the interests of justice not to relax in this case our rules relating to assignments of error in this court. Finding that the appellant is not in position to raise the questions discussed by him in his brief, the order and judgment are affirmed.

( 71 N. W. Rep. 772 .) All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1898: 11900: 11902: 11904: 11907: 11916: 11922: 11923: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co.157 N.W. 122 (N.D. 1916)
  2. Madson v. Rutten113 N.W. 872 (N.D. 1907)
  3. First National Bank v. Red River Valley National Bank83 N.W. 221 (N.D. 1900)
  4. Ward v. McQueen100 N.W. 253 (N.D. 1904)
  5. Tetrault v. O'Connor76 N.W. 225 (N.D. 1898)
  6. Lofthouse v. Galesburg State Bank188 N.W. 585 (N.D. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Leonard v. Raleigh Co-operative Mercantile Co.196 N.W. 102 (N.D. 1923)
  2. Lofthouse v. Galesburg State Bank188 N.W. 585 (N.D. 1922)
  3. Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co.157 N.W. 122 (N.D. 1916)
  4. Madson v. Rutten113 N.W. 872 (N.D. 1907)
  5. Ward v. McQueen100 N.W. 253 (N.D. 1904)
  6. Talbot v. Boyd88 N.W. 1026 (N.D. 1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Bowman v. Eppinger, 44 N.W. 1000 (N.D. 1890) 20
State v. Sch. Dist. No. 21, 71 N.W. 772 (N.D. 1897) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list