Deakin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Goodhue county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover damages for the killing of two mares of plaintiff by a train on defendant’s railway, and the only question submitted by the court to the jury was whether the defendant’s servants in charge of the train, after they discovered the peril of the mares, used reasonable care to avoid injuring them.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
Wo need not inquire whether, at the close of his testimony in chief, the plaintiff had or had not introduced evidence sufficient to establish his alleged cause of action. If he had not, any error of the court in refusing to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss was cured, if, in the after progress of the trial, competent evidence was received sufficient to supply the deficiency. Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287.
The simple question remains whether, the evidence in the case was sufficient to support the verdict. Upon a careful study of the testimony, we have come to the conclusion that it has a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Berkey v. JuddSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. Bishop Seabury MissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Davidson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Keith v. BriggsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- McRoberts v. McArthurSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Busack v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915