Harvey v. Morse

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Harvey v. Morse

160 N.W. 79, 135 Minn. 476, 1916 Minn. LEXIS 559

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided December 8, 1916·No. Nos. 20,082—(132)·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether the verdict is supported by the evidence or excessive in amount. The motion for a new trial was limited to those grounds, and the alleged errors in the admission of evidence and instructions to the jury cannot be considered. State v. District Court, 56 Minn. 56, 57 N. W. 319. The questions so presented do not require extended discussion. The charge of the court in reference to the measure of damage, by the failure of defendant to challenge it by the motion for a new trial, became the law of the case. The amount of the verdict is clearly within the limits of the rule as stated to the jury, and is not excessive. The evidence supports the verdict.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether the verdict is supported by the evidence or excessive in amount. The motion for a new trial was limited to those grounds, and the alleged errors in the admission of evidence and instructions to the jury cannot be considered. State v. District Court, 56 Minn. 56, 57 N. W. 319. The questions so presented do not require extended discussion. The charge of the court in reference to the measure of damage, by the failure of defendant to challenge it by the motion for a new trial, became the law of the case. The amount of the verdict is clearly within the limits of the rule as stated to the jury, and is not excessive. The evidence supports the verdict.

Order affirmed.

Harvey v. Morse, 160 N.W. 79, 135 Minn. 476, 1916 Minn. LEXIS 559 (Mich. 1916).

Pincite

160 N.W. 79 (Harvey v. Morse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related