Cited by

In holding that the fact that the defendant was a separate legal entity should be disregarded for purposes of gross earnings taxation, this court stated ( 42 Minn. 146 , ): “* * * We cannot see what difference it can make whether they hold the depot property as tenants in common, or put it in the name of a trustee to hold and manage for their common use, or, as in this case, organize a corporation for the same purpose, as a more economical and convenient method of holding the property

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .

Johnson v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 37 Minn. 519 , ; Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136, 137 , ; Apitz v. City of New Ulm, 189 Minn. 205, 208 , ; Peterson v. Schober, 192 Minn. 315, 329 , ; Backstrom v. New York L. Ins.

Smith v. Kipp, 49 Minn. 119 , ; Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Moody v. Tschabold, 52 Minn. 51 , ; Prosser v. Manley, 122 Minn. 448 , ; Nye v. Kahlow, 98 Minn. 81 , .

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , ; Aldrich v. Grand Rapids Cycle Co. 61 Minn. 531 , ; Lamoreaux v. Weisman, 136 Minn. 207 , .

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Poirier Mnfg.

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis, 103 Minn. 515 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, § 363.

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , , 3 Notes on Minn. Reports 201.

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Meyers v. McAllister, 94 Minn. 510 , .

“If the motion was made on the ground of errors of law occurring at the trial, an assignment of error would not be sufficient unless it specified the particular errors of law relied on.” Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , .

It was laid'down as a general rule of evidence in Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , , that the opinion of experts as to the value of services, or anything not having a fixed or known market value, is not conclusive, and that it is the province of the jury to weigh such testimony by reference to all the other facts and circumstances in the evidence, and to judge the weight and force of

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , ; Head v. Hargrave, 105 U. S. 45 , 26 L. Ed. 1028 .

*279 The only assignment of error is as follows: “The court erred in refusing plaintiff a new trial.” Under the authority of Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , , the assignment is wholly insufficient.

ts finding and order for judgment,” is indefinite and insufficient; and the same must be said of the eighth, that it was error to deny the “motion for a new trial.” As authority in support of what has .been said in respect to the second, third, fourth, seventh, and eighth assignments of error, see City v. Kuby, 8 Minn. 125 (154); Wilson v. Minnesota, 36 Minn. 112 , ; Stevens v. City, 42 Minn. 136 , ; American v. Piatt, 51 Minn. 568 , ; Dallemand v. Swensen, 54 Minn. 32 , ; Selover v. Bryant, 54

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Smith v. Kipp, 49 Minn. 119 , ; In re Granstrand, 49 Minn. 438 , ; Moody v. Tschabold, 52 Minn. 51 , .

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .

The ruling could easily be sustained on the authority of Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 13 C, , but it was strictly correct.

365 ;) Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.

Co., 83 N. Y. 138 ; Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.

The rules which should govern us in reviewing the action of the trial court in passing upon the competency of a proposed expert witness are stated in Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.

Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.