Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
This text of 12 N.W. 698 (Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis 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.
Opinion
The objection that there is no evidence to support the verdict cannot be raised in this court where there has been no motion for a new trial in the court below. Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 146.
The subject of inquiry being the value of the crop of grass destroyed on the, meadow of plaintiff, the plaintiff, as a witness in his own behalf, was asked, “What was the value of the growing grass on that land, had it not been destroyed, as it was, by this flooding water?” To this evidence defendant objected, on the ground that the witness had not been shown to be competent to testify on the subject of value. The objection being overruled, defendant excepted. The evidence was properly admitted. It appears that the witness was a practical farmer, conversant with the quantity and quality of the grass grown on this land, and acquainted with the market value of hay — the use for which this grass was designed to be used, had it matured. Under such a state of facts the witness was competent to testify on the subject inquired of.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 N.W. 698, 29 Minn. 200, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrne-v-minneapolis-st-louis-railway-co-minn-1882.