Cited by

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

It was held in the first and the leading case on the subject (Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ) that “the firmly established practice in this state requiring counsel on the trial of an action to call attention to obviously unintentional misstatements and verbal errors in the charge of the court to the jury, if deemed at all likely to be misleading, was not abrogated by the passage of Laws 1901

If plaintiffs thought the instructions likely to be so understood by the jury, they should, under the rule laid down in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , have called the court’s attention to the matter at the time; and, having failed to' do so, they are in no position to complain now.” The established practice of the court in this respect was not changed by chapter 113, p. 121, Raws 1901; Rutherford v. Selover, supra; Lahr v. Kraemer, 91 Minn. 26 , 97

ge, upon the ground that the court •did not inform the jury what it meant by a “preponderance of evidence.” There was no error in this respect, for it must be assumed that the jury understood what the court meant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, if counsel for appellant was not satisfied on that point, it was his duty to call special attention to it, under the rule in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , and Applebee v. Perry, 87 Minn. 242 , .

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

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Mountain v. Day, 91 Minn. 249 , .

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

The rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , applies, and the assignments of error respecting the charge of the court to the jury are insufficient to justify a new trial.

No exception was taken at the trial, and it comes clearly within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

uctions were made by appellant, and no exceptions were taken to the instructions given, and it is insisted by respondents that appellant is not entitled to take advantage of the error, if any was committed, in instructing the jury, for the reason that the court’s attention should have been called to the fact at the time, in order that it might be corrected; citing the case of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

If plaintiffs thought the instructions likely to be so understood by the jury, they should, under the rule laid down in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , have called the court’s-attention to the matter at the time; and, having failed to do so, they are in no position to complain now.

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Torske v. Commonwealth Lumber Co., 86 Minn. 276 , .

The situation is substantially the same as though the court had made some unintentional misstatement of law or fact which could have been corrected had attention been called to it at the trial, as was the case in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , though the case at bar is much stronger against appellant, for here the instruction of the court was an accurate statement of the law as generally applied to such cases; and if the special circumstances of this particular case made the evidence prop

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

It was decided in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , that, by a long-established -practice, it was the duty of counsel to call attention to obviously unintentional misstatements or verbal errors in the charge of the court to the jury, if deemed likely to be misleading, and that such duty was not abrogated by Laws 1901, c. 118.