Laserfiche WebLink
instructions, and the like are subject to review only if those <br />matters were assigned as error in a motion for new trial. Heise <br />v. J.R. Clark Co., 71 N.W.2d 818 (1955). <br />Although some older case language suggested that the above - <br />stated rules might be flexible, see LeMay v. Minneapolis Street <br />Railway co., 71 N.W.2d 826 (1955) ("(Olur decisions are not <br />uniform as to what may be reviewed on appeal from a judgment <br />where there has been no motion for a new trial . . . "), the <br />supreme court has recently reaffirmed the general rule that a <br />motion for new trial must be made in order to preserve issues <br />arising during the course of trial. Sauter v. 'Wassemiller, 389 <br />N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1986). Of course, any predicates to making a <br />ne4 trial motion, such as making timely objection, muss`, also be <br />satisfied before review will be permitted. Id. The rationale <br />behind the rule is to allow the trial court an opportunity to <br />correct its own errors without the time, expense and inconve- <br />nience of an appeal. Id. at 201-202. <br />Similarly, where the arinl court has neglected to make,, <br />findings on an issue, the absence of findings cannot be reviewed <br />on appeal unless it was brought tc the trial court's attention. <br />Metro <br />Federal <br />Savings <br />6 Loan Association v. <br />Adamsp <br />356 <br />N.W.2d 415 <br />(Minn. <br />App. <br />1984). <br />The party depending <br />upon <br />the <br />"missing" <br />findings for its cause of action or defense should request the <br />court to make amended or additional findings. The prosper motion <br />is one for amended or additional findings, not for new trial. <br />Rock_ ey v. Meyers, 158 N.W. 787 (1916). In both Metro and Rocke , <br />the appellants were defendants against whom the court entered <br />C <br />