Cummings v. Rogers
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Bamsey- county, refusing a new trial after a trial before Brill, J., without a jury.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
1. The first error assigned, viz., the failure of the trial court to' make four certain findings of fact, is disposed of by the rule which requires application to be made (as it was not in this case) to the trial court for such additional or more specific findings as are desired and deemed to be warranted by the evidence. Smith v. Pendergast, 26 Minn. 318, (3 N. W. Rep. 978;) Bradbury v. Bedbury, 31 Minn. 163, (16 N. W. Rep. 854;) Hewitt v. Blumenkranz, 33 Minn. 417, (23 N. W. Rep. 858.)
2. Upon a careful perusal of the record, we are of opinion that the findings of fact cannot be said to be…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Carpenter v. HolcombMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- O'Connor v. HughesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- School District v. HayneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Austin v. WagesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Quinn v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Graham v. MerchantOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Maffet v. Oregon & Cal. RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1905
- Kemmerer v. Title & Trust Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Keator v. FergusonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- Speer v. PhillipsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.