Hector v. Royal Indemnity Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion
Both parties appealed. The plaintiffs were unsuccessful on their appeal and the defendants on their appeal. Both move for a reargument.
The plaintiffs contend that we left it to the trial court to determine whether there was error and then to grant a new trial because of error. We did not intend such a thing. The language of the opinion is incomplete and unfortunate. The trial court charged upon the question of merger, and upon motion for a new trial was of the opinion that its charge was inadequate and in error and that likely the jury was prejudiced. We agreed. We cited Mingo v. Extrand, 180…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Marshall v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Mingo v. ExtrandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Hartikka v. D. G. Cutler Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hector v. Royal Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931