Rosenfield v. Arrol
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of St. Paul, refusing a new trial after a trial by the court and judgment of $100 ordered for plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
It is not argued on this appeal that the court below erred in any of its rulings upon such questions of law as were presented during the trial, nor is it claimed that the order for judgment *396was incorrect/if the findings of fact were justified by the testimony. Appellant’s contention is that they were not; that the witnesses wholly failed to show his negligence; and further, that, from the undisputed testimony, it affirmatively appeared that the respondents had themselves contributed to the injury. Yery little need be said ■upon either of these positions. Plaintiffs and defendant held leases…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moore v. . GoedelNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Simonton v. LoringSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1878
3Cited by14 opinions
- Marcheck v. KluteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Segal v. Bloom Brothers Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Elliott v. Merchants & Bankers Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Buckley v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Waidelich v. AndrosMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.