WENDELSDORF v. COUNTY OF MARTIN, 220 Minn. 614 (1945)

20 N.W.2d 528

ORVILLE WENDELSDORF v. COUNTY OF MARTIN.[1]

No. 34,090.Supreme Court of Minnesota.
November 9, 1945.

Appeal and error — review — necessity of exception at trial or assignment in motion for new trial as ground for review.

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 assign it as error in a motion for new trial.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Martin county, Julius E. Haycraft, Judge, dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action at the close of his case. Affirmed.

Leo J. Seifert, for appellant.

C.L. Erickson, County Attorney, and Guy E. McCune, for respondent.

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

Page 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.

Page 1