Ingalls v. Holmgren
This text of 83 N.W. 980 (Ingalls v. Holmgren) 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.
Opinion
A verdict having been returned for defendant in the court below, plaintiff moved for a new trial on two grounds: First, that the verdict of the jury was not justified by the evidence and is contrary to law; second, for error in law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the plaintiff. The motion for a new trial was denied, and plaintiff appealed.
[279]*279The only assignment of error is as follows: “The court erred in refusing plaintiff a new trial.” Under the authority of Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136, 43 N. W. 842, the assignment is wholly insufficient.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
83 N.W. 980, 81 Minn. 278, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingalls-v-holmgren-minn-1900.