Cited by

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ; Manley v. Harvey Lbr.

This case does not fall within the well established and frequently followed rule announced in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370, 371 , , which ivas there properly applied.

The slipping and falling of relator was testified to by him only; and under the rule stated in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , undisputed testimony, not inherently improbable, may not be disregarded by triers of fact.

appeal rests in part upon the claim that relator’s uncontradicted testimony, that he had no externally noticeable hernia prior to the lifting, that in the act suddenly intense pain was experienced, and that immediately thereafter the hernia appeared, is not inherently improbable nor impeached by surrounding circumstances and must be accepted as true by the triers of fact (O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ) ; and in part on the proposition that the triers of fact as well as two of responde

As there is no testimony that this conversation did not take place, he contends that under the rule stated in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , it conclusively establishes that he was on the business of his employer and within the protection of the compensation act.

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , and cases cited.

This question received *493 extended consideration in Oldenburg v. Petersdorff, 160 Minn. 402 , ; and O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , and cases cited; Manley v. Harvey Lbr.

A reading of the record discloses many circumstances, testimony of other witnesses and some inconsistencies, all of which put her testimony beyond the operation of the rule that a jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness, concerning which the cases were collected in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

Bank v. Donald, 56 Minn. 491 , , and in the many cases cited in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ; Bauman v. Roth Downs Mfg.

A late expression of our court upon this doctrine is found in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , where the cases are collected.

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

The principle stated in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , and the many like cases preceding it, relative to the effect of un-contradicted testimony, is without application.

Co. 168 Minn. 145 , ; Muetzel v. Muetzel, 169 Minn. 360 , ; O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

Appellants challenge this last mentioned finding on the principle that the court cannot disregard the positive testimony of un *122 impeached witnesses — relative to which the authorities are collected in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , to which may now be added Watson v. Goldstein, 176 Minn. 18 , .

*24 O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , and cases there cited.

For a complete list of Minnesota cases on the proposition see O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .