Netzer v. City of Crookston
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of tbe district court for Polk county, in favor of defendant, entered in pursuance of the order of Searle, J., after a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $750.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The facts of this case were stated sufficiently for present purposes in tbe opinion on tbe former appeal. 59 Minn. 244, 61 N. W. 21. Upon tbe second trial tbe plaintiff again had a verdict, but tbe court set it aside, and ordered judgment for tbe defendant notwithstanding tbe verdict. Our conclusion is that in thus ordering judgment for tbe defendant tbe court was in error for two reasons.
Tbe defendant failed to bring itself within tbe provisions of Laws 1895, c. 320. To entitle a party to judgment under tbe statute two things are necessary. First. He must have made a motion to direct a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wood v. CullenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- Kernan v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Van Doren v. WrightSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Hemstad v. HallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Netzer v. Crookston CitySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Knight v. MartinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Ladwig v. Supreme Assembly Equitable Fraternal UnionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Campbell v. WellerWyoming Supreme Court · 1917
- Hamaker v. PatrickNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
- Zywiec v. City of South St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.