Cited by

* * * It is only where the inference upon which the challenged finding rests is not itself reasonably supported or where it is clear that the whole evidence is in manifest and undeniable preponderance against it (even though there is some support for it in the evidence) that there should be a reversal.” Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439, 442 , , and cases cited p. 442.

Co. 167 *358 Minn. 140, ; Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Nealis v. C. R. I. & P. Ry.

London & L. I. Co. v. District Court, 141 Minn. 348 , ; Hansen v. N. W. Fuel Co. 144 Minn. 105 , ; Kaletha v. Hall Mercantile Co. 157 Minn. 290 , ; Behr v. Soth, 170 Minn. 278 , ; Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .

Co. 125 Minn. 308 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Minneapolis Elec.

Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .

Co. v. District Court, 132 Minn. 249 , ; Lading v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 464 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Reardon v. City of Austin, 174 Minn. 359 , ; Austin v. Leonard, Crossett & Riley, Inc. 177 Minn. 503 , ; Tschida v. Bratt, 179 Minn. 277 , 228 N W. 935.

Lading v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 464 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Reardon v. City of Austin, 174 Minn. 359 , .

Co. 125 Minn. 308 , ; Evenson v. Aamodt, 153 Minn. 14 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .

Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; State ex rel.

Co. 156 Minn. 60 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; O’Connor v. C. R. I. & P. Ry.