Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swedish-American National Bank v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co., 105 N.W. 69.

25 citing documents.

Laurissa Wredberg v. Canvas Health, Inc. Minn. 2026
Co., 105 N.W. 69, 70 (Minn. 1905) (“The exception … must be construed with reference to the rule adopted and the reason upon which it is based.”).
National Tea Co. v. Tyler Refrigeration Co. 339 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1983
National Tea Co. v. Tyler Refrigeration Co. 339 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1983
Co., 96 Minn. 436 , 105 N.W.
Watson v. Gardner 236 N.W. 213 Minn. 1931
Watson v. Gardner 236 N.W. 213 Minn. 1931
Co. 96 Minn. 436 , ; Strand v. G. N. Ry.
Garbisch v. American Railway Express Co. 225 N.W. 432 Minn. 1929
Garbisch v. American Railway Express Co. 225 N.W. 432 Minn. 1929
Co. 96 Minn. 436 , ; DiVita v. Payne, 149 Minn. 405 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Tiedt v. Larson 219 N.W. 905 Minn. 1928
Tiedt v. Larson 219 N.W. 905 Minn. 1928
Co. 96 Minn. 436 , ; Fortier v. Skibo Timber Co. 111 Minn. 518 , ; Kitman v. C. B. & Q. R. Co. 113 Minn. 350 , ; Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal.
Banner Grain Co. v. Burr Farmers Elevator & Supply Co. 202 N.W. 740 Minn. 1925
Banner Grain Co. v. Burr Farmers Elevator & Supply Co. 202 N.W. 740 Minn. 1925
Co. 96 Minn. 436, 437 , ; Strand v. G. N. Ry.
Sullivan v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 200 N.W. 922 Minn. 1924
Sullivan v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 200 N.W. 922 Minn. 1924
Di Vita v. Payne 184 N.W. 184 Minn. 1921
Di Vita v. Payne 184 N.W. 184 Minn. 1921
Co. 96 Minn. 436 , , the record was admissible.
Keller Electric Co. v. Burg 168 N.W. 98 Minn. 1918
Keller Electric Co. v. Burg 168 N.W. 98 Minn. 1918
Co. 96 Minn. 436 , ; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 113 Minn. 16 , .
Lowitz v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 161 N.W. 411 Minn. 1917
Lowitz v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 161 N.W. 411 Minn. 1917
State v. Virgens 151 N.W. 190 Minn. 1915
State v. Virgens 151 N.W. 190 Minn. 1915
Co. 96 Minn. 436 , ; Strand v. Great Northern Ry.
Healy v. Hoy 132 N.W. 208 Minn. 1911
Healy v. Hoy 132 N.W. 208 Minn. 1911
Strand v. Great Northern Railway Co. 111 N.W. 958 Minn. 1907
Strand v. Great Northern Railway Co. 111 N.W. 958 Minn. 1907
Co., 96 Minn. 436 , , that it was not error to receive as original and independent evidence the car record of another common carrier, which tended to show that the cars of produce in question were delivered to such other carrier.