Grannis v. St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This case, and the one immediately preceding it, are of precisely the same nature; 7were tried in the same court, at the same term, 'and both come here on appeals taken by defendant from ■ the refusals of the court below to grant new trials.
Read the full summary
This case, and the one immediately preceding it, are of precisely the same nature; 7were tried in the same court, at the same term, 'and both come here on appeals taken by defendant from ■ the refusals of the court below to grant new trials. The same questions which were discussed and decided in that case, arise here, upon the same state of facts; but in this, additional reasons are urged by the defendant why the court erred in denying a new trial, to-wit: that the verdict of the jury is not justified by the evidence, and that the damages assessed are excessive, appearing to have been the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Ripley, Ch. J.
The opinion in the preceding case of Simmons vs. the St. Paul and Chicago Railway Co. disposes of the questions raised by this appeal, except as follows:
It is urged in this case, that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, and that it is for excessive damages, appearing to have been the result of passion and prejudice. The land' taken is part of a block of water lots in Red Wing, and is a strip taken off the whole shore front, three hundred feet long; forty-four feet wide at one end, and fifteen feet at the other; and the track is laid upon an embankment…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Wagner v. NagelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Scott v. St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Palmer v. St. Paul & Duluth RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Duresen v. BlackmarrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Parker v. BradfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.