Fara v. Great Northern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Fara v. Great Northern Railway Co.

130 N.W.2d 142, 269 Minn. 573, 1964 Minn. LEXIS 815

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 24, 1964

Docket39553

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 130 N.W.2d 142 (Fara v. Great Northern 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

Fara v. Great Northern Railway Co., 130 N.W.2d 142, 269 Minn. 573, 1964 Minn. LEXIS 815 (Mich. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon plaintiff’s petition in her action claiming damages for personal injuries arising out of a grade-crossing accident we issued an alternative writ of mandamus to review the order of the District Court of St. Louis County and the Honorable J. K. Underhill, judge thereof, granting defendant railway company’s motion for a change of venue from St. Louis County to either Kanabec or Pine County at plaintiff’s option.

Considering only those facts presented to the trial court, as required by Thies v. Midland Co-op. Wholesale, Inc. 254 Minn. 369, 95 N. W. (2d) 307, we are of the opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the change of venue. Since it is not shown that the trial of the action was thereby delayed, we are not prepared to hold that the motion was untimely or that the court was precluded from making its order under Rule 29, Code of Rules for the District Court. 1

The change was ordered pursuant to Minn. St. 542.11(4) to promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. One factor considered by the court in ordering a change was the possibility that the jury may be granted a view of the scene. This is a proper factor to consider in venue motions, and in the absence of prejudice or inconvenience to plaintiff, it could be given weight in determining the motion. Miller v. Anchor Cas. Co. 233 Minn. 87, 45 N. W. (2d) 705. Inasmuch as the facts *574 before the trial court were susceptible of supporting an order either granting or denying the defendant’s motion, a clear abuse of discretion is not shown, and we decline to interfere.

Writ discharged.

1

Minn. St. 1961, p. 4940; Thon v. Erickson, 232 Minn. 323, 45 N. W. (2d) 560.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon plaintiff’s petition in her action claiming damages for personal injuries arising out of a grade-crossing accident we issued an alternative writ of mandamus to review the order of the District Court of St. Louis County and the Honorable J. K. Underhill, judge thereof, granting defendant railway company’s motion for a change of venue from St. Louis County to either Kanabec or Pine County at plaintiff’s option.

Considering only those facts presented to the trial court, as required by Thies v. Midland Co-op. Wholesale, Inc. 254 Minn. 369, 95 N. W. (2d) 307, we are of the opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the change of venue. Since it is not shown that the trial of the action was thereby delayed, we are not prepared to hold that the motion was untimely or that the court was precluded from making its order under Rule 29, Code of Rules for the District Court. 1

The change was ordered pursuant to Minn. St. 542.11(4) to promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. One factor considered by the court in ordering a change was the possibility that the jury may be granted a view of the scene. This is a proper factor to consider in venue motions, and in the absence of prejudice or inconvenience to plaintiff, it could be given weight in determining the motion. Miller v. Anchor Cas. Co. 233 Minn. 87, 45 N. W. (2d) 705. Inasmuch as the facts *574 before the trial court were susceptible of supporting an order either granting or denying the defendant’s motion, a clear abuse of discretion is not shown, and we decline to interfere.

Writ discharged.

1

Minn. St. 1961, p. 4940; Thon v. Erickson, 232 Minn. 323, 45 N. W. (2d) 560.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 N.W.2d 142, 269 Minn. 573, 1964 Minn. LEXIS 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fara-v-great-northern-railway-co-minn-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack