Page 118

• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: North Dakota State Library
• Subjects: Politics & Government; Mooney; Woodward; ren; Ruff
• Online Access: http://cdm16921.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16921coll3/id/15714

JOHNS -0. RUFF 75 Appeal from District Court, Wells County; S. L. Glaspell, J. Action by John G. Johns against Chris. Ruff. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed. Plinn H. Woodward, for appellant. One desiring to challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict must either 1. Request that a verdict be directed in his favor, or 2. Except to the charge of the court submitting questions of fact to the jury, or 3. Move for a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence. No other mode of raising the question of the sufficiency of the evi dence is provided by law. Henry v. Mayer, 6 N. D. 143, 71 N. W. Rep. 127. Insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict can only be raised by a specification of wherein it is l1'lSumclCl’llf. Colby v. Mc Dermont, 6 N. D. Rep. 495, 71 N. W. Rep. 772; Henry v. Mayer, 6 N. D. Rep. 413, 71 N. W. Rep. 127, Rev. Codes, section 5474; Mooney v. Donovan, 9 N. D. Rep. 93, 81 N. W. Rep. 50. A verdict of a jury, to which neither party has objected, should not be va cated by the court on its own motion, unless there has been such a disregard of instruction on the evidence in the case, that the court is at once satisfied without mature reflection or the aid of argument, that such verdict is the result of passion or prejudice, or was ren dered under a misapprehension of the court’s instructions, and the order should be promptly made on the coming in and entry of the verdict. Clement v. Barnes, 8 S. D. Rep. 421, 61 N. W. Rep. 1126; Gould v. Elez'at0r Co., 2 N. D. 216, 50 N. W. Rep. 969; Flugel v. Henschel, 6 N. D. 205, 69 N. W. Rep. 195. If the court erred in not directing a verdict on its own motion and the jury rendered a general verdict, judgment must be entered on the verdict. Kellogg, Jolmson <9 Co. v. Gillman, 3 N. D. 538. 58 N. W. Rep. 339. Motion at the close of testimony to direct a verdict in his favor, is a condi tion precedent to the right of a party to move for a judgment not withstanding the verdict. Hemstead v. Hall, 66 N. W. Rep. 366; Netzer v. Crookston, 68 N. W. Rep. 1099; Sayers v. Harris, 87 N. W. Rep. 617, 11 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 920; Crane v. Knauf et al., 68 N. W. Rep. 79. A party is not entitled to judgment notwithstanding verdict. in either trial or appellate court unless he asks for that relief on mo