From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holtberg v. Bommersbach

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Feb 1, 1952
235 Minn. 553 (Minn. 1952)

Opinion

Nos. 35,703, 35,704.

February 1, 1952.

Appeal and error — scope of review — matters of record.

1. Appeals must be decided solely upon the evidence actually presented to the trial court and shown by the record on appeal.

Same — same — same — affidavits.

2. Affidavits filed or obtained after the trial and which were therefore not presented to the trial court are entitled to no place in the appellate record and briefs and may not be considered as part of the evidence by a court of review.

Same — review — order based on original records — necessity of settled case or bill of exceptions.

3. In reviewing an order of the trial court which is based exclusively upon the original records on file, inclusive of affidavits which are a part thereof, a settled case or bill of exceptions is not necessary if the original file has been returned to this court.

Two actions in the district court for Todd county, consolidated for trial, to recover for damages sustained by plaintiffs claimed to be the result of defendants' negligence, wherein plaintiffs appealed from an order, Rol E. Barron, Judge, in each case granting defendents' motion to set aside service of the summons and complaint. On motion of plaintiffs for advancement on the calendar of hearing of the appeals, and on motion of defendants to strike from plaintiffs' brief certain affidavits or, in the alternative, for dismissal of the appeals on the ground of lack of a bill of exceptions or settled case, motion of plaintiffs granted; motion of defendants to strike affidavits granted, and alternative motion to dismiss appeals denied.

J. Norman Peterson, for appellants.

Dell, Rosengren Rufer, for respondents.



The plaintiff in each of two separate actions, consolidated for trial, has appealed from an order granting defendants' motion to set aside and quash the service of the summons and complaint. We now have a motion by plaintiffs to have the hearing of the appeals advanced on the calendar. We also have a motion by defendants to strike from plaintiffs' brief three affidavits which were never presented to or considered by the trial court and which were in fact obtained subsequent to the taking of the appeal herein. In the alternative, defendants have also moved for a dismissal of the appeals upon the ground that the appeals are not properly before this court for want of a bill of exceptions or settled case.

We shall first consider defendants' motion to strike from appellants' brief the three affidavits which were never presented to the trial court for consideration. These affidavits relate to the movements and whereabouts of defendant Richard Feckler subsequent to the time of the making of the attempted service upon him of the summons and complaint, by leaving copies thereof at his purported house of usual abode.

1-2. It is elementary that the supreme court is vested only with appellate jurisdiction, except in such remedial cases as may be prescribed by law. Appeals, therefore, must be decided solely upon the evidence actually presented to the trial court and shown by the record on appeal. We are not here concerned with the exception pursuant to which an appellate court, in order to sustain verdicts and judgments, may permit omissions in proof to be supplied by documentary evidence of a conclusive nature. See, Mattfeld v. Nester, 226 Minn. 106, 32 N.W.2d 291, 3 A.L.R. 2d 909. Affidavits filed or obtained after the trial obviously could not have been presented to the trial court and are entitled to no place in the appellate record and briefs. Clearly, they may not be considered as part of the evidence by a court of review.

Minn. Const. art. 6; 6 Dunnell, Dig. Supp. §§ 9069, 9070.

Mattfeld v. Nester, 226 Minn. 106, 123, 32 N.W.2d 291, 303, 3 A.L.R. 2d 909; Moose v. Vesey, 225 Minn. 64, 29 N.W.2d 649; Lindgren v. Towns of Algoma and Norland, 187 Minn. 31, 33, 244 N.W. 70, 71; Schmidt v. Equitable L. Assur. Society, 376 Ill. 183, 33 N.E.2d 485, 136 A.L.R. 1036; 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1522; 3 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, § 835.

Keith v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. 264, 232 S.W. 321, 16 A.L.R. 949; 3 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, § 835; see, Schmidt v. Equitable L. Assur. Society, 376 Ill. 183, 33 N.E.2d 485, 136 A.L.R. 1036.

In support of their theory that this court may consider the affidavits which were never presented to the trial court, plaintiffs cite the case of C. M. St. P. Ry. Co. v. Sprague, 140 Minn. 1, 167 N.W. 124. The Sprague case, as well as Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318, 265 N.W. 44, and Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69, 23 N.W.2d 375, 24 N.W.2d 41, as an exception to the general rule that the theory upon which a case is tried below must be adhered to on appeal, hold that an appellate court may properly base its decision upon a ground not presented to the trial court where, upon undisputed facts, the question raised for the first time on appeal is decisive of the entire controversy on its merits. Obviously, the exception established by these decisions furnishes no justification for a consideration of evidence not produced at the trial.

3. Although defendants' motion to strike from plaintiffs' brief all affidavits which were not produced before the trial court must be granted, their alternative motion to dismiss the appeal for want of a settled case or bill of exceptions will be denied. In reviewing an order of the trial court which, as in the instant case, is based exclusively upon the original records on file, inclusive of affidavits which are a part thereof, a settled case or bill of exceptions is not necessary if the original file has been returned to this court. Pursuant to M.S.A. 605.04, a litigant who desires the benefit of this rule bears the burden of taking the necessary steps to have the clerk of the trial court forward the original file to the supreme court. An appellant confronted with a motion for the dismissal of his appeal for want of a settled case or a bill of exceptions should have the original file forwarded to this court prior to the date of the hearing of such motion.

Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Brown, 181 Minn. 392, 232 N.W. 740; Muellenberg v. Joblinski, 188 Minn. 398, 247 N.W. 570.

Upon the showing made, plaintiffs' motion to have the hearing of the appeals advanced upon the calendar is granted, and it is ordered that they be set for hearing on the first open day in the month of March 1952.

Defendants' motion to strike certain affidavits from plaintiffs' brief is granted, and the alternative motion to dismiss the appeals is denied.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Holtberg v. Bommersbach

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Feb 1, 1952
235 Minn. 553 (Minn. 1952)
Case details for

Holtberg v. Bommersbach

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM HOLTBERG v. GEORGE J. BOMMERSBACH AND ANOTHER. BURTON A. BERKHOEL…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Feb 1, 1952

Citations

235 Minn. 553 (Minn. 1952)
51 N.W.2d 586

Citing Cases

Western World Ins. Co. v. Anothen, Inc.

The general rule is that an appellate court must decide an appeal based "solely upon the evidence actually…

Viiliainen v. American Finnish Workers Society

Pursuant to M.S.A. 605.04, a litigant who desires the benefit of this rule bears the burden of taking the…