Hess v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 01 June 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,705 - (69) |
| Citation | 108 N.W. 7,98 Minn. 198 |
| Parties | DANIEL HESS v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
August 17, 1906
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $20,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Orr, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $4,000. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and granting a motion for a new trial, the parties severally appealed. Affirmed upon both appeals. Clerk's taxation of costs reversed.
Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict.
A judgment notwithstanding a verdict is not authorized, where there is a clear conflict in the evidence upon material issues in the case.
Memorandum of Court -- Reasons.
A memorandum of the trial court held sufficiently to state that the order granting a new trial was based upon the ground that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence.
Sheehan & Keefe and Lovely & Dunn, for plaintiff.
M. L Countryman, for defendant.
Action for personal injuries, in which, after verdict for plaintiff defendant moved in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The court denied the motion for judgment, but granted a new trial. Defendant appealed from so much of the order as denied its motion for judgment, and plaintiff appealed from the part granting a new trial.
The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Plaintiff, in November, 1903, chartered a car in which to transport certain household goods and farming utensils belonging to him from Freeborn county, in this state, to Hunter, in the state of North Dakota, where he had rented a farm which he intended to operate during the following year. He accompanied the car on its journey, and occupied the position of a passenger, though he rode in the car containing his goods. At Campbell, in this state, on November 27, a collision between the train to which his car was attached and another on defendant's road resulted in wrecking several cars, and, as claimed, seriously injuring plaintiff. The defense to the action was (1) that plaintiff in fact received no serious injury, and (2) that subsequent to the accident, on December 10, 1903, defendant settled and paid plaintiff in full for all injuries sustained to his person, and that plaintiff executed and delivered to it a written release and discharge of all claims for such injuries. The release was set out in haec verba in defendant's answer, to which plaintiff replied that the same was obtained by fraudulent representations on the part of the agent of defendant to the effect that it was a release and discharge of plaintiff's claim for damage to his personal property only. The principal question litigated on the trial, aside from the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, was this issue of fraud. The jury found in plaintiff's favor, and the question presented to this court is whether, within the rule governing the right of a party to judgment notwithstanding a verdict, the evidence is so far conclusive that no fraud was perpetrated by defendant's agent in making the settlement that the court below should have granted defendant's motion.
1. The correct rule on this subject was laid down in the case of Cruikshank v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 75 Minn 266, 77 N.W. 958, where it was held, in effect, that such relief was not proper in any case where the evidence offered, if true, constitutes a cause of action or a defense. Such relief is never granted where there is a clear conflict in the evidence. Marquardt v. Hubner, 77 Minn. 442, 80 N.W. 617; Kreatz v. St. Cloud School...
To continue reading
Request your trial