Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $50,000 for injury received while a passenger upon one of defendant’s cars. The answer alleged that for a valuable consideration plaintiff delivered to defendant a release, by the terms of which she discharged defendant from all causes of action and demands in any manner arising from or growing out of the claims and occurrence set up in the complaint.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $50,000 for injury received while a passenger upon one of defendant’s cars. The answer alleged that for a valuable consideration plaintiff delivered to defendant a release, by the terms of which she discharged defendant from all causes of action and demands in any manner arising from or growing out of the claims and occurrence set up in the complaint. The amended reply alleged that the release was not binding upon plaintiff, because obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations made by defendant about the time of its execution, that it…
1Per curiam
This is a motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the defendant’s appeal from an order denying its motion lor a new trial.
The case was here before upon an appeal by the defendant from the judgment and the judgment was affirmed. There was a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. There was no motion for a new trial. This appeal is reported in 132 Minn. 51, 155 N. W. 1046.
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict does not bar a subsequent motion for a new trial. Sallden v. City of Little Falls, 102 Minn. 358, 113 N. W. 884. The trial court may entertain a motion…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sallden v. City of Little FallsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Noonan v. SpearSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Daily v. St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Day v. Putnam InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Kimball v. PalmerleeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Barrett v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Harcum v. BensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Connelly v. Carnegie Dock & Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Marriage of Mingen v. MingenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Ayer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.