Burgraf v. Byrnes
This text of 113 N.W. 1133 (Burgraf v. Byrnes) 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.
Opinion
This cause was here on two former appeals. 94 Minn. 418, 103 N. W. 215; 99 Minn. 517, 109 N. W. 1132. The first appeal involved the sufficiency of the complaint, and the second was from an order granting defendant a new trial on the ground of surprise and excusable neglect. It is now hereon plaintiff’s appeal from an order granting defendant a new trial on the grounds (1) of errors in law occurring at the trial, and (2) that the verdict for plaintiff was not justified by the evidence.
The case requires no extended opinion. We discover no errors in the rulings of the court sufficient to justify a new trial, but a careful examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the order should not, within the rule of Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434), be disturbed.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
113 N.W. 1133, 102 Minn. 511, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgraf-v-byrnes-minn-1907.