Cited by

Defendant recognizes the rule in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , relative to the necessity of calling the trial court’s attention to defects of certain kinds in the charge obviously due to inadvertence and that upon failure so to do objection cannot be raised therefor on motion for a new trial or on appeal.

The first case construing the statute is Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , where it Avas held that an exception need not be taken at the time to an instruction on a controlling-proposition of laAV but must be taken if there Avas an inadvertent *242 mistake or inadequate treatment.

1176; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .” The record does not disclose any request for instructions by defendant, and no exceptions were taken to the charge.

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Murphy v. Collins, 155 Minn. 290 , ; Manley v. Connolly, 155 Minn. 343 , ; Thompson v. Harry W. Smith Auto Livery Co. 155 Minn. 358 , ; Peterson v. G. N. Ry.

Applebee v. Perry, 87 Minn. 242 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Bailey v. Grand Forks Lbr.

The rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , is applicable in criminal as well as civil actions.

The court’s attention was not called to the inadvertent statement, and we apply the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Considering the charge as a whole, we are of the opinion that the jury could hardly have been misled, but, if defendant’s counsel feared a misapprehension, the court’s attention should have been called to the misuse of the word “and.” Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

If he feared that the jury might receive an erroneous impression from the statement of the rule as made by the court, we think that he should have called attention to it at the time, and that the rule announced in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , and followed in numerous subsequent cases, precludes him from now raising the question.

Bonyea Piano Co. v. Wendt, 135 Minn. 374 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Dun.

Co. 36 Minn. 522 , ; McCormick H. M. Co. v. McNicholas, 66 Minn. 384 , ; Applebee v. Perry, 87 Minn. 242 , ; Brown v. Radebaugh, 84 Minn. 347 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Schornak v. St.

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , .

This was a verbal inaccuracy not called to the court’s attention as required by the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , hence the assignment raising this point cannot be considered.

We apply the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , recently discussed in Easterly v. Hoppin, 135 Minn. 1, 5 , , and hold that plaintiff is not in a position to take advantage'of the alleged error in the instructions.

Steinbauer v. Strong, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Ordinarily, applying Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , we would not grant a new trial of the issues for such an error.

The rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , applies.

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , and cases cited under section 9798, Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 273, 274 , .

No such request was made and the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , applies.

Some verbal inaccuracies are complained of, but they were not pointed out at the trial, and clearly come within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 374 , .

If the inaccuracy in the first quoted instruction was deemed misleading, or inconsistent with the last, the court’s attention should have been directed to it at the time — the practice indicated in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

The rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , applies.