Epstein v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
Cited by
- Ola Abdelaziz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State v. Brown 932 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 2019
- Haile v. Sutherland 598 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
- K.A.C. v. Benson 527 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1995
- Kohoutek v. Hafner 383 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1986
- Kinikin v. Heupel 305 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1981
- Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
- Haavig v. Hidding 214 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1974
- Smith v. Rekucki 177 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1970
- Campbell v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. 142 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1966
- Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
- Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Wood v. Cullen 13 Minn. 394
- 13 Minn. 398 not in our corpus
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. Action to recover damages for the wrongful taking and carrying away of a quantity of sand and soil from the rear of plaintiff’s lot in Minneapolis. The action was tried before a jury, and a verdict for $300 returned for plaintiff, whereupon defendant moved for a new trial upon several grounds; among them, that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. The motion for a new trial was granted unless plaintiff would consent to a reduction of the verdict to $125, which plaintiff refused, and appealed from the order. The. lot was thirty-two feet wide by one hundred twenty-two feet in length, located between Washington avenue and the river. The front of the lot was upon grade, and ran back for a distance of -about fifty feet, and then sloped upward until at the rear it was about five or six feet above the grade. The material was taken from the high portion at the back of the - lot, causing it to *517 slope off to the grade. The witness on the part of plaintiff placed the damage at from $250 to $325, and defendant’s - witness testified that there was no damage at all. While the motion for a new trial was based upon all of the statutory grounds, it is evident from the order itself that a new trial was granted upon the ground that the court did not consider the verdict justified by the evidence. It does not, appear that the court exceeded the limits of sound discretion in granting the new trial, and the case is controlled by the familiar case of Hicks v.. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434). Order affirmed.