Hinkle v. Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was commenced in the district court for Ramsey county, to recover for work alleged to have been performed by plaintiff for defendant, in constructing a railroad between White Bear Lake and Stillwater. The defence was that the work was not done for defendant, but for the Still-water and Saint Paul Railroad Company.
Read the full summary
This action was commenced in the district court for Ramsey county, to recover for work alleged to have been performed by plaintiff for defendant, in constructing a railroad between White Bear Lake and Stillwater. The defence was that the work was not done for defendant, but for the Still-water and Saint Paul Railroad Company. The following extract from the opinion of the judge of that court on a motion for a new trial, states the substance of the evidence: “ The case, upon the part of the plaintiff, rested upon evidence tending to show that, immediately prior to entering upon this work, he…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Berry, J.
Whether certain work was performed by plaintiff for defendant, was the important question in this case. It seems to us that there was evidence having a reasonable tendency to show that the work was done by plaintiff for defendant, and, therefore, we perceive no reason for taking this case out of the usual rule in accordance with which we have so frequently refused to set aside verdicts under like circumstances.
■ The remark of the judge below in his opinion upon the motion for a new trial, seems to us just, as applied to this *300case. He says, “ there was evidence in the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Marvin v. DutcherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880
- St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. EastmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874