Opinion
No. 30,174.
March 1, 1935.
Appeal and error — necessity of exception and specification of error as to ruling on evidence.
In the absence both of an exception thereto and a clear specification thereof in his motion for a new trial, an appellant may not assign as error a ruling on evidence.
Action in the district court for Hennepin county for a judgment decreeing that plaintiff, as assignee, is the owner of the life membership of one E.J. Miller in defendant Minneapolis Athletic Club free of any lien of defendant Warner, claiming under judgment and levy under writ of execution. There were findings in favor of plaintiff, Harry A. Johnson, judge of the sixth judicial district acting for the judges of the fourth judicial district. From an order denying his motion for a new trial defendant Warner appealed. Affirmed.
C.A. Pidgeon and Carl K. Lifson, for appellant.
Donald O. Wright and Alfred W. Bowen, for respondent.
After trial without a jury, the decision was for plaintiff. Defendant A.L. Warner appeals from the order denying his alternative motion for amended findings or a new trial. The defendants, other than the appellant, are not parties to the appeal.
The issue was whether plaintiff, claiming under an assignment from its former owner, or defendant Warner, claiming under a judgment and levy, had the prior right to a life membership in the Minneapolis Athletic Club. There is plenty of evidence to sustain the decision that plaintiff, as assignee, owned the membership to the exclusion of any right acquired by appellant under his judgment.
The only other question has to do with the admission of certain evidence for plaintiff. The objection to the evidence was overruled, but there was no exception by defendants. The only attempt to reach the point by specification of error in the motion for a new trial was in this language: "Errors at law occurring during the trial in the introduction of evidence in this action, objected to by counsel."
There being no exception to the ruling, it was incumbent on appellant to "clearly specify the alleged error in his notice of motion for a new trial" (2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 9327) in order to have advantage thereof on appeal. He did not do so. 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. Supps. 1932, 1934) § 7091.
Order affirmed.