Cited by

Boynton v. Simmons, 156 Minn. 144 , Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315

Christensen v. Pestorious, 189 Minn. 548 , ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , ; Ewert v. Chirpich, 169 Minn. 386 , ; Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , ; Stanger v. Thompson, 153 Minn. 488 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , .

Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Cargill Grain Co. v. Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Co. 182 Minn. 516 , ; Thomsen v. Reibel, 212 Minn. 83 , 2 N. W. (2d) 567 .

Bolstad v. Armour & Co. 124 Minn. 155 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , .

Co. 130 Minn. 121 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Boynton v. Simmons, 156 Minn. 144 , ; 5 Wigmore, Evidence (1 ed.) §§ 2485-2489.

Co. 145 Minn. 310 , ; Piepho v. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Simpson v. Egler, 166 Minn. 501 , ; Messenbring v. Blackwood, 171 Minn. 105 , .

^ See Piepho v. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Langworthy v. Owens, 116 Minn. 342 , ; Adams v. Nathanson, 161 Minn. 433 , ; Behrens v. Hawkeye Oil Co. 151 Minn. 478 , .

Co. 125 Minn. 74 , , L. R. A. 1918D, 355; Provo v. Conrad, 130 Minn. 412 , ; Robinson v. Pence Automobile Co. 140 Minn. 332 , ; Moore v. P. J. Downes Co. 150 Minn. 333 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Elliason v. Western C. & C. Co. 162 Minn. 213 , ; Loucks v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 188 Minn. 182 , 246 N. W. *76 893.

Piepho v. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Stanger v. Thompson, 153 Minn. 488 , ; Roach v. Roth, 156 Minn. 107 , ; Ewert v. Chirpich, 169 Minn. 386 , ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250 , ; Garbush v. New York L. Ins.

“We do not adopt the doctrine that the burden of proof shifts from time to time in the trial.” Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315, 317 , .

Respondents cite Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Stoneman v. Washburn-Crosby Co. 153 Minn. 331 , ; Rau v. Smuda, 175 Minn. 328 , ; Beckman v. Wilkins, 181 Minn. 245 , ; Shotts v. Standard Oil Co. 181 Minn. 386 , ; Lausche v. Denison-Harding Chevrolet Co. 185 Minn. 635 , ; Marcel v.

They have been gone into exhaustively in Fransen v. Kellogg T. C. F. Co. 150 Minn. 54 , ; Behrens v. Hawkeye Oil Co. 151 Minn. 478 , ; Piepho v. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; and Elliason v. Western C. & C. Co. 162 Minn. 213 , .

Piepho v. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , .

Simpson v. Egler, 166 Minn. 501 , ; Malmquist v. Hellenic Community, 163 Minn. 10 , ; Elliason v. Western C. & C. Co. 162 Minn. 213 , ; Adams v. Nathanson, 161 Minn. 433 , ; Fostrom v. Grossman, 161 Minn. 440 , ; Stoneman v. Washburn-Croshy Co. 153 Minn. 331 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Behrens v. Hawkeye Oil Co. 151 Minn. 478 , ; Moore v. P. J. Downes Co. 150 Minn. 333 , ; Robinson v. Pence Automobile Co. 140 Minn. 332 , ; Provo v. Conrad, 130 Minn. 412 , ; Ploetz v.

Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , .

Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , , and cases cited; Watson v. M. S. Ry.

In determining whether Frisch was using the car in the line of his employment and within the scope of his authority, the jury might consider the fact that he was an employe using defendants’ car, Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , , and, unexplained, these facts alone might justify an inference that his use of the car at the time of the accident was an authorized use.

And see Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; note 2 A. L. R. 900.

Langworthy v. Owens, 116 Minn. 342 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Enea v. Pfister, 180 Wis.

Piepho v. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Stanger v. Thompson, 153 Minn. 490, 491 , .

See Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , .

Behrens v. Hawkeye Oil Co. 151 Minn. 478 , ; Piepho v. M. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , ; Stoneman v. Smyth, supra, page 334.

The late cases wherein this proposition is clearly stated and applied are: Fransen v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Co. 150 Minn. 54 , ; Behrens v. Hawkeye Oil Co. 151 Minn. 478 , ; and Piepho v. Sigbert-Awes Co. 152 Minn. 315 , .