Bergloff v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Bergloff v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co.

50 N.W. 829, 47 Minn. 564, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 565

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 22, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 N.W. 829 (Bergloff v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bergloff v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co., 50 N.W. 829, 47 Minn. 564, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 565 (Mich. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

DicKinson, J.

The only real contention on this appeal is whether the verdict was not larger than it should have been. If the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, — and as to that the verdict must be taken as final, — the amount which should be allowed depended upon the fact as to the quantity of lumber which a portable steam sawmill of the plaintiff was capable of sawing in any given time. If the evidence warranted the jury in the conclusion that it had the capacity of sawing 8,000 feet per day, and that it might with reasonable certainty have been expected to saw as much as that during a [565]*565certain period of time for wbicb the defendant bad obligated itself to provide logs for sawing, then the verdict was not excessive. There was sufficient testimony, the weight of which depended upon the credibility of the witnesses, to support such a conclusion. Three witnesses, including the plaintiff, put the daily capacity of the sawmill at from 8,000 to 10,000 feet, or even more; and they all appear to have been actively engaged in the operation of the mill, and to have had such means of knowledge upon the subject that it cannot be said that the jury should not have given credit to their testimony. Although there are facts and circumstances in the case tending strongly to show that these witnesses overrated the capacity of the mill, the determination of the matter was properly left to the jury, and the verdict must stand.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DicKinson, J.

The only real contention on this appeal is whether the verdict was not larger than it should have been. If the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, — and as to that the verdict must be taken as final, — the amount which should be allowed depended upon the fact as to the quantity of lumber which a portable steam sawmill of the plaintiff was capable of sawing in any given time. If the evidence warranted the jury in the conclusion that it had the capacity of sawing 8,000 feet per day, and that it might with reasonable certainty have been expected to saw as much as that during a [565]*565certain period of time for wbicb the defendant bad obligated itself to provide logs for sawing, then the verdict was not excessive. There was sufficient testimony, the weight of which depended upon the credibility of the witnesses, to support such a conclusion. Three witnesses, including the plaintiff, put the daily capacity of the sawmill at from 8,000 to 10,000 feet, or even more; and they all appear to have been actively engaged in the operation of the mill, and to have had such means of knowledge upon the subject that it cannot be said that the jury should not have given credit to their testimony. Although there are facts and circumstances in the case tending strongly to show that these witnesses overrated the capacity of the mill, the determination of the matter was properly left to the jury, and the verdict must stand.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.W. 829, 47 Minn. 564, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bergloff-v-mille-lacs-lumber-co-minn-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack