Edwards v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

210 N.W. 686, 191 Wis. 328, 1926 Wisc. LEXIS 273
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided November 9, 1926·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Vinje, C. J.

We perceive no abuse of discretion on the part of the circuit court in granting a new' trial. In such case the order must be affirmed. Raether v. Filer & Stowell Mfg. Co. 155 Wis. 130, 143 N. W. 1035.

As there must be a new trial, we purposely forbear to comment upon the testimony causing the setting aside of the verdict further than to state that it should not form the basis of a judgment.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.

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

Edwards v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co., 210 N.W. 686, 191 Wis. 328, 1926 Wisc. LEXIS 273 (Wis. 1926).

210 N.W. 686 (Edwards v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rusch v. Sentinel-News Co.
250 N.W. 405 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1933)