Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/538

514

1. An order of the district court refusing an application for judgment upon the findings of a jury is not an appealable order, within the meaning of subdivision 1, § 5236, Comp. Laws 1887, which subdivision is as follows: "An order affecting a substantial right, made in any action, when such order in effect determines the action, and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken." Such an order neither determines an action nor any issue in an action, nor is it the legal effect of such an order to prevent the entry of a judgment from which an appeal might be taken. Persons v. Simons, 243.

2. Held, further, that the order is not rendered appealable by the fact that the district court had previously denied defendant's application for judgment on the findings of the jury. Id.

3. An order vacating an attachment is an appealable order. ''Red River Valley Bk. v. Freeman, 196''.

Municipal and public corporations need not give bond on appeal to obtain stay of proceedings. Territory v. Woodbury, 85.

1. After a trial by jury, and at the close of plaintiff's testimony, the defendant moved the trial court to direct a verdict in defendant's favor, which motion was granted, and plaintiff duly excepted to the order. Evidence examined. Held, that the order directing a verdict was substantial error to plaintiff's prejudice, and that a new trial must be granted for the reason that the evidence reasonably tended to sustain the allegations of the complaint, and hence such evidence should have been submitted to the jury. Slattery v. Donnelly, 264.

2. Where defendant sheriff justified seizure under writ of attachment and alleged that the debt, on which was brought the action in which the writ issued, was incurred under false pretenses, (plaintiff claiming property as exempt) the refusal of the court to allow proof of the false pretenses is reversible error. Taylor v. Rice, 72.

3. Error does not constitute reversible error where the plaintiff conclusively established his right to recover on grounds wholly different from and independent of the subject matter of the erroneous instruction. Such instruction did not materially affect the substantial rights of the defendant, and hence it is not prejudicial error. Johnson v. N. P. R. R. Co., 354.

1. To sustain objection to a question, the competency of which is not apparent on its face, is not error unless offer is made to prove the facts sought to be elicited by the question. Halley v. Folsom, 325.

2. Sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict cannot be as sailed in the supreme court when in neither the notice of intention to move for a new trial nor the bill of exceptions are the particulars specified wherein the evidence is alleged to be insufficient. Pickert v. Rugg, 230.

3. The action of the trial court in directing a verdict, and in refusing to allow plaintiff to dismiss her action, cannot be reviewed on appeal without an exception. Sections 5080, 5237, Comp. Laws, held not to permit such review without an exception. DeLendrecie v. Peck, 422.

4. Irregularities in dure not objected to nor called to attention