Cited by

But, unless conclusively so rebutted, the questions would seem questions of fact for the jury.” The prima facie case is not overcome by the uncontradicted testimony of interested witnesses, “if the evidence is for any cause inconclusive in its nature, — as, for example, where different conclusions may be reasonably drawn from it, or where its credibility is doubtful.” Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Lausche v. Denison-Harding Chevrolet Co. supra; American Cas.

Sina v. Carlson, 120 Minn. 283 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Shotts v. Standard Oil Co. 181 Minn. 386 , .

Co. 39 Minn. 254 , ; Krenz v. Lee, 104 Minn. 455 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Baxter v. Brandenburg, 137 Minn. 259 , ; Osborn v. Will, 183 Minn. 205 , .

Co. 138 Minn. 424 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Sina v. Carlson, 120 Minn. 283 , ; Burud v. G. N. Ry.

Co. 114 Minn. 244 , ; Arnold v. Dauchy, 115 Minn. 28 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Olsson v. Midland Ins.

L. R. Co. 132 Minn. 173 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Baxter v. Brandenburg, 137 Minn. 259 , ; Olsson v. Midland Ins.

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Olsson v. Midland Ins.

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Olsson v. Midland Ins.

Counsel for respondent argue very earnestly that this is a case within the reason of such cases as Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , , and Lammers v. Mason, 123 Minn. 204 , , and that it was for the jury to say to what extent self-interest rendered the credibility of defendant doubtful when he testified as to the information given by his son, his consequent investigation and the disclosure made to his attorney.

The evidence brings the case within the rule applied in Jensen v. Fletcher, 134 Minn. 366 , .

In a general way the facts do not differ substantially from those in Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , , and Johnson v. Schuler, supra, page 137, , where the father was held liable notwithstanding his positive uncontradicted assertion that, his son had taken the car contrary to his instructions.

The case on its facts is a close one; but within Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 970; Jensen v. Fischer, 131 Minn. 336 , ; and Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 871, and the cases there cited, it was for the jury and not the court to say whether the Dort car was kept so much for a family use and its use for the pleasure of Roderick so much sanctioned that the father was responsible for his son’s negligence.

970; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; and Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 L.R.A.

970; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Uphoff v. McCormick, 139 Minn. 392 , ; Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , .

970; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; McNeal v. Mc- *360 Kain, 33 Okl.

The case of Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , , has no "application to the facts in this case.

See Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Olsson v. Midland Ins.

Minn. 243 , , Justice Mitchell said: “The fact that there is no conflict in the testimony does not make the case one for the court instead of the jury, if the evidence is for any cause inconclusive in its nature as, for example, where different conclusions may be reasonably drawn from it, or where its credibility is doubtful.” The principle was recently applied in Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , , to the testimony of an interested witness.