Kelly v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Two actions in tbe district court for Bamsey county, one by the wife to recover $10,000 for inability to carry on her business on account of her injuries; the other by the husband to recover $5,000 general damages and $1,570 special damages for loss of services and companionship of his wife. The cases were tried before Michael, J., who granted defendant’s motions for directed verdicts in its favor. From an order denying their motions for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, C. J.
Plaintiffs in these two actions are husband and wife. The wife received certain injuries to her person by reason of the alleged negligence *372of defendant and the action in her name was brought to recover damages therefor. The action by the husband was brought to recover for loss of companionship and the expense incurred in the care and medical attention of the wife pending her recovery. The actions were tried together in the court below, at the conclusion of which verdicts were directed for defendant. Plaintiffs joined in an appeal from an order denying a new trial.
It appears from the pleadings…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Knoblauch v. FoglesongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Summerlin v. Thompson & Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1893
- Schutt v. AdairSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Walker v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Petty v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rouchene v. Gamble Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Cayse v. Foley Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Kunda v. Briarcombe Farm Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Jackson v. LaneNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948
- State Ex Rel. Schneider v. KennedySupreme Court of Kansas · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.