Crosby v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
Lizzie I. Crosby v. St. Paul City 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.
Vanderburgh, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant in the management of one of its -cars *414 upon which plaintiff was a passenger, and while she was in the act of alighting therefrom. The issues were tried before a jury, and submitted to them upon the testimony introduced in behalf of the respective parties. A new trial was granted by the court, on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence.
It is not important to review the testimony in detail. It is sufficient to say that we have carefully considered it after argument by counsel, and are of the opinion that a new trial on this ground was fairly within the discretion of the trial court, under the rule governing such cases, as laid down and followed in numerous decisions in this court. Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 , (434;) Rheiner v. Stillwater Street Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 147 ; Fox v. Burke, 29 Minn. 171 ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 30 Minn. 41 ; Wilcox v. Landberg, 30 Minn. 93 ; Young v. Davis, 30 Minn. 293 ; Carlson v. Small, 32 Minn. 439 ; Clapp v. Minn, & St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 22 .
Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.