Magistad v. Potter

36 N.W.2d 400, 227 Minn. 570, 1949 Minn. LEXIS 515
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedFebruary 18, 1949
DocketNos. 34,670, 34,671, 34,672.
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 36 N.W.2d 400 (Magistad v. Potter) 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
Magistad v. Potter, 36 N.W.2d 400, 227 Minn. 570, 1949 Minn. LEXIS 515 (Mich. 1949).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

In this action for personal injuries, separate verdicts of $45,000 each were rendered in favor of plaintiff against the defendants Chicago & North Western Railway Company, L. E. Peterson, and C. M. Potter, individually and as sole trader as the Potter Grain and Fuel Company. The case is here on separate appeals denying their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts or a new trial.

Error is assigned on misconduct of counsel for plaintiff in his argument to the jury. Since this court takes the view that a new trial must be granted on that ground, we refrain from passing upon the motions for judgment for the reason that the issues of fact are such that there may be further evidence introduced on another trial which may affect the question of recovery on the merits. 3 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 5082, and cases cited under note 8.

Exceptions to counsel’s remarks to the jury were neither taken at the time they were made nor at the close of his argument, as permitted by the district court rule, but only after the court had charged the jury. However, we regard the argument as so prejudicial and so calculated to excite prejudice and passion that the trial court, of its own motion, should have taken action upon it. The accusations of perjury against plaintiff’s witnesses by defendants’ counsel were not sufficient provocation to justify the misconduct. *572 The court did not take action. Consequently there must be a new trial.

Orders reversed.

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

Related

Wild v. Rarig
234 N.W.2d 775 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1975)
State v. Gilreath
487 P.2d 385 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1971)
Reese v. Ross & Ross Auctioneers, Inc.
149 N.W.2d 16 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1967)
Brabeck v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
117 N.W.2d 921 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1962)
Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.
77 N.W.2d 433 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1956)
Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transportation Co.
64 N.W.2d 530 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1954)
Maher v. Roisner
57 N.W.2d 810 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1953)
Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
57 N.W.2d 572 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1953)
State v. Morgan
51 N.W.2d 61 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
Magistad v. Potter
36 N.W.2d 400 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 N.W.2d 400, 227 Minn. 570, 1949 Minn. LEXIS 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magistad-v-potter-minn-1949.