Taylor v. St. Paul City Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Taylor v. St. Paul City Railway Co.

83 N.W. 189, 80 Minn. 331, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 500

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 26, 1900

DocketNos. 12,068—(159)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 83 N.W. 189 (Taylor v. St. Paul City Railway 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

Taylor v. St. Paul City Railway Co., 83 N.W. 189, 80 Minn. 331, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 500 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial after verdict for plaintiff. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries caused, as plaintiff claims, by reason of [332]*332the negligence of defendant’s servants in the manner of the operation of one of its street cars, which collided with plaintiff’s wagon. We have examined the evidence, and, though it is not the most convincing, are satisfied that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. At least, it is not so clearly and palpably against the verdict as to justify interference by this court. An examination of the record discloses no such exception as is pointed out by the second assignment of error, and no assignment of error to cover the exception mentioned in subdivision 11 of the appellant’s brief. And although the court below did charge the jury that they were at liberty, under the evidence, to find defendant’s motoneer guilty of wanton and wilful negligence, the error, if it was error, is not presented by any assignment of error, and cannot be considered.

This cause was set down for oral argument, in violation of the rules, — the amount involved not exceeding $100, — and no statutory costs will be allowed respondent. Vaule v. Steenerson, 63 Minn. 110, 65 N. W. 257.

Order affirmed.

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

BROWN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial after verdict for plaintiff. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries caused, as plaintiff claims, by reason of [332]*332the negligence of defendant’s servants in the manner of the operation of one of its street cars, which collided with plaintiff’s wagon. We have examined the evidence, and, though it is not the most convincing, are satisfied that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. At least, it is not so clearly and palpably against the verdict as to justify interference by this court. An examination of the record discloses no such exception as is pointed out by the second assignment of error, and no assignment of error to cover the exception mentioned in subdivision 11 of the appellant’s brief. And although the court below did charge the jury that they were at liberty, under the evidence, to find defendant’s motoneer guilty of wanton and wilful negligence, the error, if it was error, is not presented by any assignment of error, and cannot be considered.

This cause was set down for oral argument, in violation of the rules, — the amount involved not exceeding $100, — and no statutory costs will be allowed respondent. Vaule v. Steenerson, 63 Minn. 110, 65 N. W. 257.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.W. 189, 80 Minn. 331, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-st-paul-city-railway-co-minn-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack