Street v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
JOHN STREET 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.
Dibell, C.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries; verdict for the plaintiff; defendant appeals from the order denying its alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial.
1. This case was here before and is reported, in 124 Minn. 517 , 145 N. W. 746 . The general facts explanatory of the case may be found there. A decision made upon a former appeal is the law of the case. Orr v. Sutton, 127 Minn. 37 , 148 N. W. 1066 , and cases cited; and evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict on a first appeal is sufficient on a second appeal. Webber v. Axtell, 110 Minn. 52 , 124 N. W. 453 , 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 398.
2. On the former appeal it was held that whether the defendant violated the duty fixed by G. S. 1913, § 4399 (R. L. 1905, § 2031), and whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in attempting to alight from the train while it was in motion, were under the evidence questions for the jury. There is additional evidence in this case, but it goes no further than to accentuate the dispute between the parties. Applying the law of.the former case the verdict-should stand.
Order 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.