Cited by

the part of counsel in its argument to the jury we said: “* * * Its counsel having invited the argument of plaintiff’s counsel, defendant is in no position to complain of the retaliatory remarks by plaintiff’s counsel, though the latter’s language was more emphatic than necessary,” citing Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 382 , , and authorities cited; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; United States v. De Vasto (2 Cir.) 52 F. (2d) 26, 78 A. L. R. 336.

Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , .

Duff v. Bemidji Motor Service Co. 210 Minn. 456 , ; Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 190 Minn. 81 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .

To same effect, see, Ball v. Gessner, 185 Minn. 105 , (parking truck on highway in violation of statute); Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; and Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , (trucks parked on pavement at night with no taillight burning).

Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 382 , , and authorities cited; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; United States v. De Vasto (2 Cir.) 52 F. (2d) 26, 78 A. L. R. 336.

The two cases of Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , , and Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , , cited in the Orrvar opinion and distinguished from the situation there presented, support the view that plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury.

Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .

This rule, suggested in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Loring in Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , , relieves counsel of the necessity of interrupting counsel during argument and making objections in cases in which the argument is taken down.

ebuts the presumption that honest and fair-minded men could not reasonably draw different conclusions therefrom.” See also Fairchild v. Kilbourne, 152 Minn. 457 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; Brown v. Raymond Bros. Motor Transportation, Inc. 186 Minn. 321 , ; Martin v. Tracy, 187 Minn. 529 , ; Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co

Tuttle v. Wicklund, 178 Minn. 353 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; Johnston v. Jordan, 193 Minn. 298 , .

Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N. W. *600 283; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Co. 146 Minn. 430 , ; Edblad v. Brower, 178 Minn. 465 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; Johnson v. Mallory, 123 Neb.

Co. 185 Minn. 571 , 242 N.W.

The two cases that most strongly support the respondent’s theory are those of Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , , and Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .

The situation was not such as to make the conclusion of the Avitnesses admissible under Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .

Co. 169 Minn. 342 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 838 , ; Forster v. Consumers W. S. Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Mechler v. *325 McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .