Echols v. Illinois Central Railroad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Echols v. Illinois Central Railroad

133 N.W. 1132, 116 Minn. 540, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1021

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 24, 1911

DocketNos. 17,446—(181)

StatusPublished

This text of 133 N.W. 1132 (Echols v. Illinois Central Railroad) 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

Echols v. Illinois Central Railroad, 133 N.W. 1132, 116 Minn. 540, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1021 (Mich. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cukiam.

This action was brought, in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, to recover damages from the defendant, the initial carrier, for loss due to the negligence of the defendant and the connecting carrier in transporting a carload of sweet potatoes for the plaintiff from Ullin, Illinois, to St. Paul, Minnesota. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $375.52, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

The sole question presented by the record in this court is whether the verdict is sustained by the evidence. The defendant contends that the evidence fails to show any negligence on its part, and that in no event was the plaintiff under the evidence entitled to a verdict in excess of $207.30. The evidence, although conflicting in material matters, fairly sustains the verdict and the amount thereof.

Order affirmed.

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

Pee Cukiam.

This action was brought, in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, to recover damages from the defendant, the initial carrier, for loss due to the negligence of the defendant and the connecting carrier in transporting a carload of sweet potatoes for the plaintiff from Ullin, Illinois, to St. Paul, Minnesota. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $375.52, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

The sole question presented by the record in this court is whether the verdict is sustained by the evidence. The defendant contends that the evidence fails to show any negligence on its part, and that in no event was the plaintiff under the evidence entitled to a verdict in excess of $207.30. The evidence, although conflicting in material matters, fairly sustains the verdict and the amount thereof.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 N.W. 1132, 116 Minn. 540, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/echols-v-illinois-central-railroad-minn-1911.