Legal Opinion

Scheiber v. Chicago, St. Raul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 28, 1895No. Nos. 9429—(188)PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of tbe district court for Ramsey county, Kelly, J., denying a motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the Court

START, C. J.2

This is a personal injury case, wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries sustained by him by reason of the alleged negligence of defendant in the management of its railway train upon which he was a passenger. The trial court, at the close of the evidence, instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and it was so returned. To this instruction the plaintiff excepted, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial he prosecutes this appeal.

Under the evidence, the question of the defendant’s negligence in the premises was one of fact for the jury, and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Abbett v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Cleveland, Etc., Railway Co. v. MoneyhunIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Denny v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. Lewis v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  4. Benedict v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
  5. Krenz v. LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API