Stokoe v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1889
• Citation: 40 Minn. 545
• Parties: THOMAS A. STOKOE <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

40 Minn. 545

THOMAS A. STOKOEvs.ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 31, 1889.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Stearns county, Searle, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The reply admitted the making of the release pleaded in the answer, and alleged, in avoidance, that it was obtained by defendant's agent by false representations.

O. W. Baldwin and L. S. Thomas, for appellant.

M. D. Grover and Reynolds & Stewart, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The plaintiff, who was an employe of the defendant, was injured while coupling freight cars.He complains that the accident causing the injury happened without fault on his part, by reason of the unsafe coupling attachment or draw-bar left in use on one of the cars, and which was of an old and inferior kind or pattern, the defects and dangers of which he described to the jury, and contrasted with the later and improved couplers in use on other of defendant's cars.Other experienced brakemen also testified upon the same subject.We think there was evidence for the consideration of the jury on this branch of the case.

One of the defences in the case is an alleged release by plaintiff of his claim for damages, which plaintiff insists was procured by fraud, and it was material to his case to have it produced or its contents proved on the trial.One of the defendant's attorneys, present in court, was sworn on behalf of the plaintiff, and was asked if he had in his possession the release in question.He refused to answer, on the ground of his privilege as an attorney in the case, and the court sustained the...