Mead v. Billings
| Decision Date | 21 May 1889 |
| Citation | 42 N.W. 472,40 Minn. 505 |
| Parties | MEAD v BILLINGS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Upon an appeal from an order granting a new trial to the defendant, unless the plaintiff should consent to a reduction of the amount awarded him by a jury, the settled case did not purport to contain all of the evidence. Held, following Chesley v. Railroad Co., 38 N. W. Rep. 769, which overruled Henry v. Hinman, 21 Minn. 378, that under such circumstances it will not be presumed that the evidence was “manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict.”
Appeal from district court, Hubbard county; SLEEPER, Judge.
Action by Charles W. Mead against James Billings. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order granting a new trial he appeals.
O. W. Baldwin and F. A. Vanderpoel, for appellant.
A. G. Broker, for respondent.
Appeal from an order granting a new trial to defendant, unless the plaintiff should consent to a reduction of the amount awarded him by the verdict of a jury. There is no statement in either settled case, or in the judge's certificate of its settlement, that the case, as settled, contains all of the evidence received upon the trial. The party alleging error in an order granting a new trial must show it by the record; that is, from the record before this court it must affirmatively appear that the order ought not to have been granted; and, to justify us in reversing such an order, it must be made to appear that the evidence was “manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict.” Chesley v. Railroad Co., 38 N. W. Rep. 769, in which Henry v. Hinman, 21 Minn. 378, was overruled. As the settled case now before us does not purport to contain all of the evidence offered and received upon the trial, error in making the order appealed from cannot be presumed. Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardwick Farmers Elevator Company v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
...on the subject is therefore presented for our consideration. The verdict must stand, in the absence of other objection. Mead v. Billings, 40 Minn. 505, 42 N.W. 472; Brackett v. Cunningham, 44 Minn. 498, 47 N.W. The second defense asserted was that the law was unconstitutional under the stat......
-
Hardwick Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...on the subject is therefore presented for our consideration. The verdict must stand, in the absence of other objection. Mead v. Billings, 40 Minn. 505, 42 N. W. 472;Brackett v. Cunningham, 44 Minn. 498, 47 N. W. 157. The second defense asserted was that the law was unconstitutional under th......
-
Hardwick Farmers Elev. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...on the subject is therefore presented for our consideration. The verdict must stand, in the absence of other objection. Mead v. Billings, 40 Minn. 505, 42 N. W. 472; Brackett v. Cunningham, 44 Minn. 498, 47 N. W. The second defense asserted was that the law was unconstitutional under the st......
- Wiggins v. Stephens