Murray Cure Institutes Co. v. Ward

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Murray Cure Institutes Co. v. Ward

121 N.W. 878, 108 Minn. 527, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 757

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided June 22, 1909·No. Nos. 16,079—(131)·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the county of Koochiching.

The only question presented by the record is whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a change of the place of trial for the convenience of witnesses. Such a motion is directed to the discretion of the trial court. Sims v. American Steel Barge Co., 56 Minn. 68, 57 N. W. 322, 45 Am. St. 451. Upon a full consideration of the record, we are of the opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the county of Koochiching.

The only question presented by the record is whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a change of the place of trial for the convenience of witnesses. Such a motion is directed to the discretion of the trial court. Sims v. American Steel Barge Co., 56 Minn. 68, 57 N. W. 322, 45 Am. St. 451. Upon a full consideration of the record, we are of the opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Murray Cure Institutes Co. v. Ward, 121 N.W. 878, 108 Minn. 527, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 757 (Mich. 1909).

Pincite

121 N.W. 878 (Murray Cure Institutes Co. v. Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related