Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)

Citation: Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Parent Document: Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 1948-04-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3533510/mattfeld-v-nester/ ↗

Full Text

1,233 chars

proved as a matter of law William’s appointment as sncli, and if the letters had been received upon the trial he would have been entitled to a peremptory instruction to that effect. Furthermore, the interests of justice require that the proof be received and that the litigation be ended. Courts, both trial and appellate, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice resulting from a retrial, for the purpose of proving a fact the existence of which can be conclusively established by an indisputable and incontrovertible document, have the power to reopen the case to receive such proof even after verdict, and will exercise the power to sustain a verdict or judgment where the omission was caused through inadvertence or mistake of counsel for the prevailing party in failing to offer the proof upon the trial. Bank of Charleston v. Emeric, 2 Sandf. (N.Y.) 718; Prescott-Phoenix Oil & Gas Co. v. Gilliland Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 775; 64 C. J., Trial, § 184; see, Meserve v. Folsom, 62 Vt. 504, 20 A. 926. The rule applies also where the case is tried by the court and decision is announced before the omitted evidence is offered. Riverside Portland Cement Co. v. Masson, 69 Or. 502, 139 P. 723, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 127.

Other Sections in This Document (117)

Full Text