Cited by

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment absolute, but that upon the record and concessions of defendant’s counsel on the argument he is entitled to a new trial.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , entitled defendant to that relief.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , ; Bragg v. Chicago, M. & St.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , judgment cannot be ordered, and the cause must go back for a new triál.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , we are not warranted in directing judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and we remand the question for further consideration by the court below.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , the order of the trial court is affirmed.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , ; Bragg v. Chicago, M. & St.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , 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.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , and for that reason a new trial is ordered.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , and subsequent cases, and that a new trial should be had.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , : “Originally, at common law, judgment notwithstanding the verdict could only be granted in favor of the plaintiff, the remedy in favor of the defendant being to have the judgment arrested; but either by statute, or by judicial relaxation of this rule, judgment notwithstanding the verdict became quite g

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , ; Marquardt v. Hubner, 77 Minn. 442 , ; Kreatz v. St.

Co., 75 Minn. 266 , , it can only be granted when it is clear that the cause of action or the defense put upon the record does not, in point of substance, constitute a legal cause of action or defense.