TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Swedberg v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

DAVID SWEDBERG v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY

Swedberg v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 179 N.W. 890 (Minn. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 5, 1920
Docket
No. 21,917
Citations
179 N.W. 890147 Minn. 4561920 Minn. LEXIS 773
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Negligence — questions for jury. Action for killing plaintiff’s cow. Verdict for plaintiff. Hela: The court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant and submitting the issues of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury. [Reporter.]
Summary
Action in the district court for Freeborn county to recover $90, the value of a cow killed by defendant’s train at a place where its right of way was unfenced. The answer alleged negligence in allowing the cow to stray upon the railroad, track. The case was tried before Catherwood, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for the amount demanded. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.

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.

Per Curiam.

A consideration of the record in this cause leads to the conclusion that the issues of negligence and contributory negligence, as well as the issue of proximate cause, were on the facts disclosed by the evidence questions of *457 fact and properly submitted to ,the jury. The yerdict is supported by sufficient competent evidence, and the record presents no reversible error.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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