Schultz v. Schneckenberger
KATHERINE SCHULTZ v. HERMAN J. SCHNECKENBERGER
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.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 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.