Cited by

91 Minn. 311 , ; McKenzie v. Banks, 94 Minn. 496 , ; Virtue v. Creamery Package Co. 123 Minn. 17, 44 , , L. R. A. 1915B, 1179, 1195; Farmer v. Studebaker Corp. 126 Minn. 346 , ; Van Cappellan v. C. St.

See Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , ; Peters v. Schultz, 107 *302 Minn. 29, 32 , ; Wentworth v. Butler, 134 Minn. 382 , ; Bartlett v. Ryan, 141 Minn. 76 , .

Co. 64 Minn. 369 , ; Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , ; Humphrey v. Monida & Yellowstone Stage Co. 115 Minn. 18 , .

Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , .

But such evidence may be admitted wherever the collateral fact will have a direct, logical tendency to shed real light on the question in issue.” In Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , , Chief Justice Start cited several cases to this question, and stated: “In the practical application of the rule a fair discretion must be allowed to the trial court, and evidence of such collateral facts is to be received with caution.” The testimony here involved is too voluminous to set out in full

Phillips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , .

Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , .

Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , .

The trial resulted in favor of defendants and was affirmed by this court ( 91 Minn. 311 , ) and May .11, 1904, judgment was entered in the district court.

Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311, 315 , .

See also King v. McCarthy, 50 Minn. 222 , ; Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , ; Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co., 94 Minn. 529 , .

Glassberg v. Olson, 89 Minn. 195 , ; Philips v. Mo, 91 Minn. 311 , .