Cited by

§ 14.69(d) (1994) (reviewing court may reverse administrative decision affected by error of law); cf. Benson v. Marshall County, 163 Minn. 309, 309 , 204 N.W.

Our only authority is to determine “whether there is any evidence tending to support a given finding, and whether the evidence conclusively establishes a particular fact,” both of which “are deemed questions of law.” Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , .

Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , .

784 , must be applied here, viz: *510 “The court, or the person or commission, whose duty it is to determine facts upon competent evidence, must accept as true the positive, unimpeached testimony of credible witnesses, unless the same is inherently improbable or rendered so by facts and circumstances disclosed at the hearing.” Subsequent cases applying this rule are: Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , ; Lampi v. James H. Brown Co. 165 Minn. 169 , ; Miller v. Aetna Ins.

Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , .

Bank, 163 Minn. 294 , ; Ben *372 son v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , ; Lampi v. James H. Brown Co. 165 Minn. 169 , ; Failes v. Failes, 166 Minn. 137 , ; State Bank v. Walter, 167 Minn. 37 , ; Meyers v. M. St.

Co. 157 Minn. 122 , , ; Benson v. County of Marshall, 168 Minn. 309 , ; Campbell v. C. N. Ry.

Bank of Winona v. Donald, 56 Minn. 491 , ; Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , ; and Turner v. Gackle, 168 Minn. 514 , , defendants contend that there is nothing to contradict the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Schiek in respect of the advancements or the understanding that the money was to be returned to the wife for her children, hence the trial court could not properly

Finally, we have the gravel hauling cases, Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , ; and Bouse v. Town of Bird Island, 169 Minn. 367 , .

Babich v. Oliver I. M. Co. 157 Minn. 122 , , ; Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , ; Lampi v. James H. Brown Co. 165 Minn. 169 , ; Klika v. Ind.

Herron v. Coolsaet Bros, supra; Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , .

See Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , .

The question could properly be answered in the affirmative upon this record, even when due effect is given the well-established rule that the triers of fact must accept as true “the positive, uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of credible witnesses, which is neither inherently improbable nor rendered so by the facts or circumstances disclosed.” Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , , and cases therein cited.

supra; Kerchansky v. Swift & Co. 160 Minn. 195 , ; Higgins v. Standard Oil Co. 161 Minn. 490 , ; Benson v. Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , ; Ledoux v. Joncas, 163 Minn. 498 , .

In Benson v. County of Marshall, 163 Minn. 309 , , it was held that the evidence conclusively showed that it was agreed that either one of two brothers might act as a foreman on road work and that the one was entitled to compensation.