McLachlan v. Branch
Cited by
- Treat v. Kellogg 115 N.W. 947 Minn. 1908
- Prince Investment Co. v. St. Paul & Sioux City Land Co. 70 N.W. 1079 Minn. 1897
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- McRoberts v. Southern Minnesota Railroad 18 Minn. 108
- Wilder v. City of Saint Paul 12 Minn. 192
- 12 Minn. 196 not in our corpus
- 18 Minn. 111 not in our corpus
Opinion text
Gilfillan, C. J. On appeal on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict or finding of fact, the mode of considering, and rule for deciding upon, the evidence is the same, whether the cause was tried in the court below upon written or oral evidence. This rule was established in the case of Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 196 , (298;) and although not since expressed in any opinion except in Dayton v. Buford, 18 Minn. 111 , (126,) it has always been acted upon by this court, and is too well established to be questioned. But whether we consider the case upon this rule, or consider it as though we were trying the issue of fact in the first instance, we see no reason to reverse the finding of the court below. Judgment affirmed.