Finton v. Great Northern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Finton v. Great Northern Railway Co.

132 N.W. 1134, 115 Minn. 542, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1298

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 27, 1911

DocketNos. 17,287—(61)

StatusPublished

This text of 132 N.W. 1134 (Finton 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

Finton v. Great Northern Railway Co., 132 N.W. 1134, 115 Minn. 542, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1298 (Mich. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was a railway mail clerk, and was injured while riding in a mail1 ear on- defendant’s road.' The train ran off the track, the ear was derailed andi upset and took fire." The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $1,900, which was. reduced by the trial court to $1,200. The defendant complains that the verdict, as reduced by tlie court was not justified by the evidence, was excessive, and. was given under the influence of passion and prejudice. An examination of the record leads to the' conclusion that the objections are not well-founded, and that the trial court did not. abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Bunn, J., took no part.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was a railway mail clerk, and was injured while riding in a mail1 ear on- defendant’s road.' The train ran off the track, the ear was derailed andi upset and took fire." The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $1,900, which was. reduced by the trial court to $1,200. The defendant complains that the verdict, as reduced by tlie court was not justified by the evidence, was excessive, and. was given under the influence of passion and prejudice. An examination of the record leads to the' conclusion that the objections are not well-founded, and that the trial court did not. abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Bunn, J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 N.W. 1134, 115 Minn. 542, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finton-v-great-northern-railway-co-minn-1911.