Cited by

See, Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 128 (184).

ence of prejudice or passion “so long as the prejudice or passion is not shown to have affected the decision of the jury upon the other issues in the case.” Cox v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 176 Minn. 437, 441 , ; Kugling v. Williamson, 231 Minn. 135 , 42 N. W. (2d) 534 ; Whitney v. Kaliske, 131 Minn. 261 , ; Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346 , ; Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , .

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , .

303 (and quoted with approval in Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398, 402 , 1 N. W. [2d] 391, 393), the general rule is that: “* * * in any case, whether a new trial upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages should be granted or refused, or whether the verdict should be reduced, rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court (Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ), in reviewing which' this court will be guided by the general rule applicable

* * * “But in any case, whether a new trial upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages should be granted or refused, or whether the verdict should be reduced, rests in the sound judicial *403 discretion of the trial court (Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ), in reviewing which this court will be guided by the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders.” Under this rule, though the damages awarded are meager, we see no abuse of discre

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Grant v. Wolf, 34 Minn. 32 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer-Press Co. 35 Minn. 251 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)

The point most strenuously urged in this court by defendants is that the verdict as to damages was influenced by passion and prejudice, which so permeated and entered into the other issues in the case as to call for an application of the rule stated in Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , , followed and applied in Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346 , , and an unconditional new trial.

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 35 Minn. 251 , ; Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346 , ; Whitney v. Kaliske, 131 Minn. 261 , .

The rule on this subject is so well stated by Justice Dickinson in Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232, 237 , , that we here quote his language: “It may naturally be supposed that, in general, where other issues than merely the amount of damages arise in a case, the same passion and prejudice which is indicated by the awarding of excessive damages, may have affected the determination of the jury upon other

It has been held ever since Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , , that a court may reduce excessive verdicts even when there is foundation for the claim that the excessive amount resulted from passion and prejudice.

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , .

79 ; Fox v. Stevens, 13 Minn. 252 (272); Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 99 Minn. 158 , ; Anderson v. International Harvester Co., 104 Minn. 49 , .

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Grant v. Wolf, 34 Minn. 32 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 35 Minn. 251 , ; Hall v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 46 Minn. 439 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439, 11 Am.

Matters in “excuse, justification, or avoidance,” required by the ■forcible entry statute- to be pleaded, are such as constitute “new matter” under the general practice act, to which the rule of Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , , applies.

Co., 21 Minn. 215 ; Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232, 236 , ; Stillman v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 34 Minn. 420 , ; McDonald v. Peacock, 37 Minn. 512, 514 , ; Bromberg v. Minnesota Fire Assn., 45 Minn. 318 , ; Triggs v. Jones, 46 Minn. 277, 280 , ; Thompson v. Ellenz, 58 Minn. 301, 307 , ; Ha

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , .

But in any case, whether a new trial upon the ground of excessive *267 or inadequate damages should be granted or refused, or whether the verdict should be reduced, rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court (Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ), in reviewing which this court will be guided by the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders.

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , .

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ( 9 N. W. Rep.

Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ( 9 N. W. Rep.

Mitchell, J. In Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ( 9 N. W. Rep.

164 ;) Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ( 9 N. W. Rep.

See Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 .