
    Buetow, Respondent, vs. Hietpas and another, Appellants.
    
      May 25
    
    July 1, 1948.
    
    
      For the appellants there was a brief by Benton, Bosser, Becker, Parnell & Fulton of Appleton, and o'ral argument by A. W. Parnell.
    
    The cause was submitted for the respondent oh the brief of Allan C. Cain of Kaukauna.
   Fritz, J.

Appellants contend that the court’s order granting a new trial “in the interest of justice” is clearly invalid and ineffective because the court wholly failed to “set forth in detail therein” “the reasons that prompted the court to make such order.” In view of the court’s failure in that respect there are clearly applicable herein the provisions in sec. 270.49 (2), Stats., that,—

“Every order granting a new trial shall specify the grounds therefor. ... No order granting a new trial in the interest of justice shall be valid or effective unless the reasons that prompted the court to make such order are set forth in detail therein.” ,

Thus by the provisions in the sentence last quoted the court is expressly required to specify in every order granting a new trial “in the interest of justice” “the reasons that prompted the court to make such order.” That provision is clearly mandatory, and unless the reasons thus required are set forth in detail in the order, there is applicable thereto the unambiguous provision that “no order granting a new trial in the interest of justice shall be valid or effective.” Consequently the order under review is not valid or effective and therefore it must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment upon the verdict-for plaintiff’s recovery from defendants of the damages assessed by the jury; and for contribution between Grissman and Hietpas and his insurer.

By the Court, — Order reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings as stated in the opinion.

Martin, J., took no part.  