Ross v. C. C. Emerson & Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Ross v. C. C. Emerson & Co.

122 N.W. 1135, 108 Minn. 530, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 762

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 9, 1909

DocketNos. 16,125—(135)

StatusPublished

This text of 122 N.W. 1135 (Ross v. C. C. Emerson & 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

Ross v. C. C. Emerson & Co., 122 N.W. 1135, 108 Minn. 530, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 762 (Mich. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought in the justice court to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a servant of the defendant in so driving a wagon as to cause a collision. After a trial, judgment was awarded in favor of the plaintiff for $13.50 damages. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the municipal court of the city of St. Paul on a question of law. The evidence taken before the justice was returned, and after a hearing the municipal court made findings and ordered judgment affirming the judgment of the justice court. This appeal is from the judgment entered thereon.

The appellant now contends that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the [531]*531evidence returned from the justice court and that there was no evidence whatever tending to show that the plaintiff was damaged in any sum.

We have examined the record and determined both questions adversely to the appellant.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought in the justice court to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a servant of the defendant in so driving a wagon as to cause a collision. After a trial, judgment was awarded in favor of the plaintiff for $13.50 damages. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the municipal court of the city of St. Paul on a question of law. The evidence taken before the justice was returned, and after a hearing the municipal court made findings and ordered judgment affirming the judgment of the justice court. This appeal is from the judgment entered thereon.

The appellant now contends that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the [531]*531evidence returned from the justice court and that there was no evidence whatever tending to show that the plaintiff was damaged in any sum.

We have examined the record and determined both questions adversely to the appellant.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 N.W. 1135, 108 Minn. 530, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-c-c-emerson-co-minn-1909.