Lindsay v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Lyon county, Cox, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict for plaintiff. The ease is stated in the opinion. The court erred in not charging the jury as requested by the defendant. Karsen v. Mil. d St. Paul By. Co., 29 Minn. 12; Great Western R. Co. v. Haworth, 39 Ill. 346; III. Cent. B. Co. v. McClel-land, 42 Ill. 355 ; Murphy v. Chicago d N. W. By. Co., 45 Wis. 222; Ohio d Miss. Ry.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Lyon county, Cox, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict for plaintiff. The ease is stated in the opinion. The court erred in not charging the jury as requested by the defendant. Karsen v. Mil. d St. Paul By. Co., 29 Minn. 12; Great Western R. Co. v. Haworth, 39 Ill. 346; III. Cent. B. Co. v. McClel-land, 42 Ill. 355 ; Murphy v. Chicago d N. W. By. Co., 45 Wis. 222; Ohio d Miss. Ry. Co. v. Shanefelt, 47 Ill. 497; III. Cent. B. Co. v. Frazier, Id. 505; III. Cent. B. Co. v. Nunn, 51 Ill. 78; Chicago d N. W. By. Co. v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
The action is to recover damages for tlie destruction of personal property claimed by plaintiff, and situated on land in his possession. Defendant’s servants set fire to dry grass on its right of way, and the fire spread over adjoining land and reached the land on which the personal property was. Negligence in kindling and guarding the fire is alleged. There may be some verbal inaccuracies in the charge, but as they are not likely to occur on a second trial we will not notice them. Defendant requested this instruction: “If you find that the place where the property in question was, was so…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nesbitt v. St. Paul Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Crotty v. CollinsIllinois Supreme Court · 1852
- Simpkins v. RogersIllinois Supreme Court · 1854
- De Mott v. HagermanNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Thomes v. MoodySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1834
3Cited by21 opinions
- Aultman & Taylor Co. v. O'DowdSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Phillips v. KeysawSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
- Woodcock v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Babcock v. Canadian Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. JohnsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.