Opinion
Nos. 35,956, 35,957.
March 27, 1953.
Appeal and error — motion to dismiss appeal — questions important and doubtful.
Two actions in the district court for Ramsey county for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of defendants, Myron F. Leighton, Minneapolis, St. Paul Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Company, and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Pacific Railroad Company. The cases were tried together before Robert V. Rensch, Judge, and a jury, which returned verdicts for plaintiffs, Shirley and Urcel Muggenburg, for $500 and $85,500 respectively against defendant railroads and in favor of defendant Leighton. Defendant railroads appealed from an order denying their alternative motion in each case for judgment in their favor or for judgment against defendant Leighton or for a new trial. Motion of defendant Leighton to dismiss appeal denied without prejudice.
W. J. Quinn, Fordyce W. Crouch, and Philip Stringer, for appellants.
Meagher, Geer, Markham Anderson and O. C. Adamson II, for respondent Leighton.
Plaintiffs in these actions sued all of the defendants as joint tortfeasors to recover damages for personal injuries. The jury returned verdicts in favor of plaintiffs against defendants Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Company and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter called the railway companies, and in favor of defendant Leighton. Thereafter, the railway-company defendants moved for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict; if that were denied, that judgment be entered against Leighton; and, if those motions were denied, for a new trial. The court denied all motions. An appeal was taken in each action from the order denying such motions. Thereafter, the railway-company defendants made a settlement with plaintiffs. Defendant Leighton now moves to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the order is not appealable as to him and that the questions raised by the appeal have become moot as against plaintiffs.
The questions raised by the motion now before us are of considerable importance and doubtful.
It is ordered that the motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to the rights of the moving party to renew the motion when the case is heard on the merits. It is further ordered that the questions raised by the motion may be argued orally at the same time that the case is argued on the merits.