Witherell v. M. & St. P. R'Y Co.
Decision Date | 09 March 1878 |
Citation | 24 Minn. 410 |
Parties | RUSSELL WITHERELL <I>vs.</I> MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Dakota county, and subsequently brought by appeal upon questions of law and fact to the district court for the same county, where it was tried by Crosby, J., and a jury. The action was brought to recover damages for the killing of a colt, through the alleged negligence of the defendant. Plaintiff having rested, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, upon the ground that the evidence disclosed no cause of action against the defendant; the colt having been a trespasser, and the defendant not being liable except for the wilful injury or reckless misconduct of those employed in the management of the train. The motion for a nonsuit was denied, and defendant duly excepted.
The defendant also excepted to the following language in the general charge of the court:
The court also said:
The following requests, in behalf of the defendant, were respectively refused by the court:
The jury after being out all night, returned to the courtroom for further instruction on the following question, which was submitted to the court in writing:
"At the time that the counsel for the defendant asked the court to grant a nonsuit for the reason that there was not sufficient evidence to show that there was any negligence upon the part of the employes of the company, did not the court overrule said motion on the ground that in his opinion there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury in regard to the negligence of the employes of said company?"
The court answered:
The jury, thereupon, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and answered "Yes," as to the special finding submitted by the plaintiff under the instructions of the court.
The defendant subsequently moved for a new trial, and the motion having been denied defendant appealed.
Gordon E. Cole, for appellant.
Clagett & Searles, for respondent.
This action is brought to recover damages for the killing of plaintiff's colt, through the alleged negligent management of one of defendant's railroad trains.
A verdict having been rendered for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, and that errors of law occurred upon the trial,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. STATE, DNR, No. A03-679.
...or wantonly destroy the bees"). In Minnesota, a landowner owes only a limited duty to trespassing livestock. Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 24 Minn. 410, 414 (1878). Instead, liability for trespassing animals "could only be predicated on willful or wanton negligence." Lindemann ......
-
Bostwick v. Minneapolis & P. Ry. Co.
...v. Godfrey, 71 Ill. 500;Palmer v. Railroad Co., (Minn.) 33 N. W. Rep. 707;Locke v. Railroad Co., 15 Minn. 350, (Gil. 283;)Witherell v. Railroad Co., 24 Minn. 410;Scheffler v. Railroad Co., 32 Minn. 518, 12 N. W. Rep. 711; Railroad Co. v. Kerr, (Ark.) 12 S. W. Rep. 329; Harlan v. Railroad Co......
- Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
-
Hohl v. Chi., M. & St. P. R. Co.
...the cases which follow the Locke Case the animals were at large by reason of the fault of their owners. Thus in the case of Witherell v. Railway Co., 24 Minn. 410, the animal was on the track by the fault of the owner. Such was also the case of Palmer v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 37 Minn. 223, ......