Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 26 N.W. 225 (Minn. 1886). · Go Syfert
Search
Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 26 N.W. 225 (Minn. 1886). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Big Lake Lumber, Inc. v. Security Property Investments, Inc. (minnctapp, 2012-08-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Big Lake Lumber, Inc. v. Security Property Investments, Inc.
Minn. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See New Prague, 263 Minn, at 257-58, 117 N.W.2d at 12-13 (noting that “[w]here work, distinct in its nature, is performed at different times, the law supposes it performed under distinct engagements” and concluding that “the considerable lapse of time — more than 5 months — supports the conclusion that the second project was an afterthought”); Frankoviz v. Ireland, 34 Minn. 403, 406 , 26 N.W. 225, 227 (1886) (“The lapse of so long a time between the items of March 18th and June 4th, unexplained, would be evi dence, more or less strong according to the circumstances, that the two …
discussed Cited "see" Kahle v. McClary
Minn. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
Bisbee Co. v. Granite City Investing Co. 159 Minn. 442 , 199 N. W. 17 . 10 Northwestern Lbr. & Wrecking Co. v. Parker, 118 Minn. 211, 214 , 136 N. W. 855, 856 ; see, American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329, 333 , 139 N. W. 619, 620 . 11 Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , 26 N. W. 225 . 12 American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329 , 139 N. W. 619 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lizzie I. Crosby
v.
St. Paul City Railway Company
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan 12, 1886.
26 N.W. 225
1886 Minn. LEXIS 7
H. J. Horn, for appellant., S. P. Crosby, for respondent.
Vanderburgh.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
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.