TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Magistad v. Potter

Sidney J. Magistad v. C. M. Potter and Others. Chicago & North Western Railway Company and L. E. Peterson, Appellants

Magistad v. Potter, 36 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 1949)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 18, 1949
Docket
Nos. 34,670, 34,671, 34,672.
Judges
Peterson, Gallagher
Citations
36 N.W.2d 400227 Minn. 5701949 Minn. LEXIS 515

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

In this action for personal injuries, separate verdicts of $45,000 each were rendered in favor of plaintiff against the defendants Chicago & North Western Railway Company, L. E. Peterson, and C. M. Potter, individually and as sole trader as the Potter Grain and Fuel Company. The case is here on separate appeals denying their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts or a new trial.

Error is assigned on misconduct of counsel for plaintiff in his argument to the jury. Since this court takes the view that a new trial must be granted on that ground, we refrain from passing upon the motions for judgment for the reason that the issues of fact are such that there may be further evidence introduced on another trial which may affect the question of recovery on the merits. 3 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 5082, and cases cited under note 8.

Exceptions to counsel’s remarks to the jury were neither taken at the time they were made nor at the close of his argument, as permitted by the district court rule, but only after the court had charged the jury. However, we regard the argument as so prejudicial and so calculated to excite prejudice and passion that the trial court, of its own motion, should have taken action upon it. The accusations of perjury against plaintiff’s witnesses by defendants’ counsel were not sufficient provocation to justify the misconduct.

*572 The court did not take action. Consequently there must be a new trial.

Orders reversed.

Dissent — Peterson

Peterson, Justice (dissenting).

I dissent upon the authority of Eilola v. Oliver I. Min. Co. 201 Minn. 77 , 275 N. W. 408 .

Mr. Justice Thomas Gallagher took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1952: 11953: 21954: 11956: 11962: 11967: 11971: 11975: 119522026peak 1953 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transportation Co.64 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. 1954)
  2. Wild v. Rarig234 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 1975)
  3. Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.77 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 1956)
  4. State v. Gilreath487 P.2d 385 (Ariz. 1971)
  5. Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.57 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 1953)
  6. State v. Morgan51 N.W.2d 61 (Minn. 1952)

Most recent

  1. Wild v. Rarig234 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 1975)
  2. State v. Gilreath487 P.2d 385 (Ariz. 1971)
  3. Reese v. Ross & Ross Auctioneers, Inc.149 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. 1967)
  4. Brabeck v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.117 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 1962)
  5. Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.77 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 1956)
  6. Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transportation Co.64 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. 1954)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Eilola v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 275 N.W. 408 (Minn. 1937) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list