Hurt v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Benton •county, Sejrle, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. One ground of the motion was that the verdict was contrary to the instructions, to which the court, in deciding the motion, answered that “a ‘ verdict contrary to law ’ does not mean contrary to the law as given by the court, but contrary to the law applicable to the facts of the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Benton •county, Sejrle, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. One ground of the motion was that the verdict was contrary to the instructions, to which the court, in deciding the motion, answered that “a ‘ verdict contrary to law ’ does not mean contrary to the law as given by the court, but contrary to the law applicable to the facts of the case. In my opinion a new trial would not change the result; and even though the verdict may be contrary to erroneous instructions of the court, the motion should be denied.”
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
We see no error in the charge of the court to the jury of which the appellant should complain; nor can it be said that the verdict of the jury was not fully justified by the evidence. The statute (Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, §§ 54, 55) which compels railway corporations to fence their right of way is so familiar to the profession, and has been so often quoted in the decisions of this court in stock-killing cases, that a repetition of the phraseology seems unnecessary; and while this statute is imperative, and excludes no part of the line in terms, it is held to be subject to an implied exception as…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Greeley v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- First National Bank of Memphis v. KiddSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1873
- Fowler v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1866
- Hooper v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Kobe v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Acord v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Nickolson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Duncan v. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Anderson v. StewartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890