Mead v. Constans
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP PARIBAULT COUNTY. Points "and authorities of Appellant: First. — The Court below erred in allowing a new trial on affidavits alone. The affidavits should have been accompanied with a case. I Wend.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP PARIBAULT COUNTY. Points "and authorities of Appellant: First. — The Court below erred in allowing a new trial on affidavits alone. The affidavits should have been accompanied with a case. I Wend. Rep. 331. Tbe affidavit of the deponent Burt as to the testimony given on the trial is hearsay and is not authority to show, nor does it otherwise appear, that the testimony given on that trial did not cover the points and facts raised by, or contained in tbe “ newly discovered evidence.” Second. — Diligence must appear as to the former trial. “ The party applying…
1Opinion of the Court
*174 By the Court.
Emmett, O. J.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, granting a new trial to the Defendant, on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The action was brought against the Defendant as a Forwarding and Commission merchant, doing business in the City of St: Paxil, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of his negligently and carelessly forwarding, contrary to his express stipulation, and the orders and direction of the Plaintiff, certain household goods and furniture, belonging to the Plaintiff, and which the Defendant had received on consignment.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Finch v. GreenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- State v. WagnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877