Legal Opinion

Olcott v. City of St. Paul

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 8, 1904No. Nos. 13,596 — (106)PublishedCited by 17 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtLovely, J.

This action is to recover damages which plaintiff claims by reason of a fall and injury through slipping into a hole of an alleged defective sidewalk in the'city of St. Paul. At the- close of plaintiff’s evidence the court dismissed the action upon the ground that the notice required to be given the common council before suit is commenced was not in compliance with law. There was a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. This appeal is from that order.

It appears from the record that there was a former trial of the cause, wherein the complaint was held to be insufficient, and plaintiff…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Nicol v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. City of Waco v. LandinghamCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
  2. Hirth v. Village of Long PrairieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  3. Brittain v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  4. Harrington v. City of Battle CreekMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Larkin v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910

12 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