Cited by

Co. 62 Minn. 243, 245 , .

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , ; Anderson v. D. & I. R. R. Co. 116 Minn. 346 , .

Co. 62 Minn. 243, 245 , , that: “The fact that there is no conflict in the testimony does not make the case one for the court instead of the jury, if the evidence is for any cause inconclusive in its nature,- — as, 'for example, where different conclusions may be reasonably drawn from it, or where its credibility is

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , , this is not a case where different conclusions may reasonably be draAvn from the record or where the credibility of the controlling evidence *84 is doubtful.

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , ; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Schwartz v. Germania L. Ins.

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , ; McKenzie v. Banks, 94 Minn. 496 , ; Lesch v. G. N. Ry.

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , ; Drew v. Wheelihan, 75 Minn. 68 , ; Robbins v. Legg, 80 Minn. 419 , ; Grover v. Bach, 82 Minn. 299 , ; Kornig v. Western L. Ind.

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Olsson v. Midland Ins.

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , ; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Olsson v. Midland Ins.

Co. 62 Minn. 243 , , Justice Mitchell said: “The fact that there is no conflict in the testimony does not make the case one for the court instead of the jury, if the evidence is for any cause inconclusive in its nature as, for example, where different conclusions may be reasonably drawn from it, or where its credibility i

Co., 62 Minn. 243 , (which was decided after express reference to Karsen v. Milwaukee & St.

In the recent case of Burud v. Great Northern R. Co., 62 Minn. 243 , , this court said that, unless the rebutting evidence is conclusive, the question of negligence is for the jury; and if, for any cause, the evidence is inconclusive in its nature, — as, for example, where different conclusions may reasonably be drawn from it, — the cause is one for the jury, not one for