Cleland v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.

12 N.W. 461, 29 Minn. 170, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 78
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 30, 1882
StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.W. 461 (Cleland 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.

Bluebook
Cleland v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co., 12 N.W. 461, 29 Minn. 170, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 78 (Mich. 1882).

Opinion

"Vanderburgh, J.

This action is to recover the value of plaintiff’s cow, killed on defendant’s railroad track. The question involved is solely one of fact as to the place where the cow was killed — whether, when struck by defendant’s engine, she was standing on the defendant’s track, in a lane built across it for the convenient crossing of plaintiff’s cattle, or whether she was at the time in an open space north of the lane, where, for a distance of about 30 feet on each side of the track, the defendant had neglected to erect any fence. It was conceded in argument that if she was in the former place at the time, the plaintiff ought not to recover, but if in the latter, defendant is liable. This was the question submitted to the jury, and the trial court has refused, in its discretion, to disturb their verdict. The only question for this court is to determine whether, by any fair intendment, the verdict for plaintiff can be supported upon the evidence. We think there was evidence on the part of plaintiff for the jury. They were entitled to judge of the place where the cow was killed by the place where she was found, her position near the track, the distance she [171]*171would naturally have been thrown or carried, as inferred from the evidence of the manner in which she was struck by the engine, together with other facts and circumstances in evidence. Keyser v. K. C., St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 56 Iowa, 440. We discover no error in law or abuse of discretion in the trial court in refusing a new trial in this case entitling appellant to a reversal. Karsen v. Mil. & St. Paul Ry. Co., ante, p. 12.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Keyser v. K. C., St. J. &. C. B. R.
9 N.W. 338 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 N.W. 461, 29 Minn. 170, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleland-v-minneapolis-st-louis-railway-co-minn-1882.