Schultz v. Schneckenberger
This text of 84 N.W. 119 (Schultz v. Schneckenberger) 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
Action by plaintiff to recover $60, due for rent. Defense, payment in part. .Verdict for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant from an order denying Ms motion for a new trial.
There are two assignments of error requiring notice: First. Does the evidence support the verdict. Second. Misconduct of counsel for plaintiff in Ms argument to the jury.
1. We have read the evidence, and conclude that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
2. It is unnecessary to consider the language of counsel referred to in the assignment. If it was worthy of any notice whatever on the part of the court, in the absence of a request for a ruling or any ruling, an exception is insufficient to raise the question as to its effect on appeal. Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 49 Minn. 457, 52 N. W. 213, and cases cited.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
84 N.W. 119, 81 Minn. 380, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-schneckenberger-minn-1900.