Bujalski v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Bujalski v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.

211 N.W. 309, 169 Minn. 303, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1452

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 10, 1926

DocketNo. 25,628.

StatusPublished

This text of 211 N.W. 309 (Bujalski v. Minneapolis Street Railway 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

Bujalski v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co., 211 N.W. 309, 169 Minn. 303, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1452 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Dibell, J.

Action to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when a passenger of the defendant. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying its motion for a new trial.

The only ground of appeal is that counsel was guilty of misconduct in his argument to the jury. The specific claim is that counsel stated that the defendant had procured statements from the 21 passengers on the car and made no use of them, or of the testimony of the passengers, except that of two. We cannot say with any certainty that a statement to the effect claimed by the defendant was made. The language used is involved and confused. One construction permits the view that all that counsel said was that the passengers, except the two, were not produced while the employes of the defendant were producd. With this uncertainty we cannot disturb the result.

Order affirmed.

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

Dibell, J.

Action to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when a passenger of the defendant. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying its motion for a new trial.

The only ground of appeal is that counsel was guilty of misconduct in his argument to the jury. The specific claim is that counsel stated that the defendant had procured statements from the 21 passengers on the car and made no use of them, or of the testimony of the passengers, except that of two. We cannot say with any certainty that a statement to the effect claimed by the defendant was made. The language used is involved and confused. One construction permits the view that all that counsel said was that the passengers, except the two, were not produced while the employes of the defendant were producd. With this uncertainty we cannot disturb the result.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 N.W. 309, 169 Minn. 303, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bujalski-v-minneapolis-street-railway-co-minn-1926.