Howe v. Minneapolis, Saint Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Elliott, J., denying a motion for a new trial. At the trial, after the charge to the jury, defendant’s counsel asked permission to.take exception to the written portions of the charge, when he had examined the same, and the court replied, ‘Certainly, you can do so.” Such leave was granted without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff or his counsel, who were present, but did not hear the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Elliott, J., denying a motion for a new trial. At the trial, after the charge to the jury, defendant’s counsel asked permission to.take exception to the written portions of the charge, when he had examined the same, and the court replied, ‘Certainly, you can do so.” Such leave was granted without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff or his counsel, who were present, but did not hear the same. After the jury had returned a verdict and the court had adjourned for the day, defendant’s counsel dictated to the…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This was an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between a farm wagon, on which he was riding, coming from the north, and one of defendant’s trains coming from the west. The collision occurred about 10 o’clock in the morning of December 29, 1892, at the crossing of the Osseo road with defendant’s main line near Minneapolis. The trial *76resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $20,000, which the court, with plaintiff’s consent, reduced to $lá,500. This appeal is from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
The negligence charged against the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brickell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Township of Crescent v. AndersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- O'Toole v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3Cited by30 opinions
- Stotler ex rel. Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Cotton v. Willmar & Sioux Falls Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Cunningham v. City of Thief River FallsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Kokesh v. PriceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Ploetz v. HoltSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.