Conger v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Conger v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.

47 N.W. 788, 45 Minn. 207, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 122

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 12, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 N.W. 788 (Conger v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba 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

Conger v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co., 47 N.W. 788, 45 Minn. 207, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 122 (Mich. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The only question is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We think it sufficient. There was no denial in the evidence that Little, who committed the assault on plaintiff, was an employe of the .defendant. There is very little doubt that at the time of the assault he was in fact acting as a brakesman on the ear upon which plaintiff was a passenger; and, from the evidence, the jury might fairly infer that he was so acting by the authority expressed or to be implied from acquiescence of defendant’s agent or agents, whose authority to place him on duty as brakesman on that car was not disputed, so that the jury might find that he was in the line of his duty as one of the crew in charge of the train.

Order affirmed.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The only question is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We think it sufficient. There was no denial in the evidence that Little, who committed the assault on plaintiff, was an employe of the .defendant. There is very little doubt that at the time of the assault he was in fact acting as a brakesman on the ear upon which plaintiff was a passenger; and, from the evidence, the jury might fairly infer that he was so acting by the authority expressed or to be implied from acquiescence of defendant’s agent or agents, whose authority to place him on duty as brakesman on that car was not disputed, so that the jury might find that he was in the line of his duty as one of the crew in charge of the train.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.W. 788, 45 Minn. 207, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conger-v-st-paul-minneapolis-manitoba-railway-co-minn-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack