Deakin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Robert Deakin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Berry, J.
Wo need not inquire whether, at the close of his testimony in chief, the plaintiff had or had not introduced evidence sufficient to establish his alleged cause of action. If he had not, any error of the court in refusing to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss was cured, if, in the after progress of the trial, competent evidence was received sufficient to supply the deficiency. Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287 .
The simple question remains whether, the evidence in the case was sufficient to support the verdict. Upon a careful study of the testimony, we have come to the conclusion that it has a sufficient tendency to establish plaintiff’s alleged cause of action in all material points, and that therefore the-verdict should not be disturbed.
Order denying new trial affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.