Conger v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company
| Decision Date | 12 January 1891 |
| Parties | Noble H. Conger v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kelly, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after a verdict of $ 500 for plaintiff. The action was for a breach of contract to safely carry plaintiff as a passenger in one of defendant's trains. At the trial it appeared that while plaintiff was in his seat in the train, engaged in reading, he was, without any warning, struck a violent blow in the face by one Little, and the principal issue was whether Little was or was not one of the brakemen of the train.
Order affirmed.
M. D. Grover and R. A. Wilkinson, for appellant.
Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.
The only question is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We think it sufficient. There was no denial in the evidence that Little, who committed the assault on plaintiff, was an employe of the defendant. There is very little doubt that at the time of the assault he was in fact acting as a brakesman on the car upon which plaintiff was a passenger; and, from the evidence, the jury might fairly infer that he was so acting by the authority expressed or to be implied from acquiescence of defendant's agent or agents, whose authority to place him on duty as brakesman on that car was not disputed, so that the jury might find that he was in the line of his duty as one of the crew in charge of the train.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial