Schultz v. Schneckenberger

84 N.W. 119, 81 Minn. 380, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 653
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided November 15, 1900·No. Nos. 12,428—(113)·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

LEWIS, J.

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

Schultz v. Schneckenberger, 84 N.W. 119, 81 Minn. 380, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 653 (Mich. 1900).

84 N.W. 119 (Schultz v. Schneckenberger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anderson v. Larson
225 N.W. 903 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)
Powell v. Standard Oil Co.
210 N.W. 55 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1926)
Ludwig v. Spicer
109 N.W. 832 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)