From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

County of Traverse v. Veigel

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mar 21, 1930
229 N.W. 882 (Minn. 1930)

Opinion

No. 27,840.

March 21, 1930.

Amendment of judgment after affirmance by appellate court.

After refusal of this court on former appeal to consider question of interest on plaintiff's claim and after affirmance of the judgment without authorizing lower court to make any change therein, that court has no power to amend the judgment after going down of remittitur. [Reporter]

Motion in the district court for Traverse county by defendant as statutory liquidator of the Farmers State Bank of Tintah to amend a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover the balance of a deposit with the bank at the time of its closing and to establish a preference as to part of such deposit. The court, Flaherty, J. refused to entertain the motion, and defendant appealed. Affirmed.

D. F. Nordstrom, for appellant.

S.C. Odenborg, County Attorney, for respondent.



The judgment in this action was affirmed on a former appeal. County of Traverse v. Veigel, 176 Minn. 594, 224 N.W. 159. On that appeal defendant sought to raise the question that plaintiff was not entitled to the interest on its claim which had been included in the judgment, but this court refused to consider that question for the reason that it had not been raised in the court below. Some five months after the going down of the remittitur defendant made a motion to amend the original judgment by eliminating therefrom the allowance for interest. The trial court held that it was without jurisdiction to make the amendment and refused to entertain the motion. Defendant appealed.

Where a judgment has been affirmed by an appellate court the lower court cannot thereafter modify or change the judgment unless authorized to do so by statute or by the appellate court. Minnesota L. I. Co. v. Munch, 118 Minn. 340, 136 N.W. 1026; Orcutt v. Trustees of Wesley M. E. Church, 174 Minn. 153, 218 N.W. 550; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 284; 4 C.J. 1222, § 3272, 1224, § 3273, 1232, § 3290. This court having affirmed the judgment without directing or authorizing the lower court to make any change therein, that court was without power to make the amendment requested.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

County of Traverse v. Veigel

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mar 21, 1930
229 N.W. 882 (Minn. 1930)
Case details for

County of Traverse v. Veigel

Case Details

Full title:COUNTY OF TRAVERSE v. A. J. VEIGEL

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Mar 21, 1930

Citations

229 N.W. 882 (Minn. 1930)
229 N.W. 882

Citing Cases

Waite Park v. Mn. Office of Admin

OAH argues that because this court did not remand for further proceedings, Heid and Herges are further barred…

Tankar Gas, Inc. v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

2. The question of the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain this action is raised by Lumbermen's…