Cited by

Stated in reverse, the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, supra, and Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , , is that a jury may disregard the positive testimony of a witness, although he is not contradicted by other witnesses, if his testimony is impeached and made improbable by reasonable inferences drawn from the surrounding physical facts and circumstances as disclosed by the record.

As a matter of fact Justice Mitchell in Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69, 72 , , stated the rule thus: “Where the positive testimony of witnesses is uncontradicted and unimpeached either by other positive testimony or by circumstantial evidence, either extrinsic or intrinsic, of its falsity, a jury, of course, has no right to disregard it.

Seitz v. Claybourne, 181 Minn. 4 , ; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Thom v. N. P. Ry.

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

Co. 21 Minn. 215 ; Klason v. Rieger, 22 Minn. 59 ; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Anderson v. Liljengren, 50 Minn. 3 , ; Lang v. Ferrant, 55 Minn. 415 , ; Second Nat.

Co. 124 Minn. 245 , ; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Campbell v. Nelson, 175 Minn. 51 , ; Lampi v. James H. Brown Co. 165 Minn. 169 , ; Miller v. Aetna Ins.

Co. 21 Minn. 215 ; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Burud v. G. N. Ry.

Defendant’s evidence, although without express contradiction, and because only of its inherent weakness, wras open to rejection, under the rule of such cases as Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Grover v. Bach, 82 Minn. 299 , and Olsson v. Midland Ins.

Co. 21 Minn. 215 ; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Burud v. Great Northern Ry.

Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Anderson v. Liljengren, 50 Minn. 3 , .

Bank v. Donald, 56 Minn. 491 , ; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , .

Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Anderson v. Liljengren, 50 Minn. 3 , .

Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Anderson v. Liljengren, 50 Minn. 3 , .

Clearly this is not a case for the application of the rule laid down in Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , , that, “where the *176 positive testimony of witnesses is uncontradicted and nnimpeaclied either by other positive testimony or by circumstantial evidence, either extrinsic or intrinsic, of its falsity, a jury * * * has no right to disregard it.” The jury had a right to consider all the facts and circ

Klason v. Rieger, 22 Minn. 59 ; Brown v. Morrill, 45 Minn. 481 , ; Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Los v. Scherer, 90 Minn. 456 , ; State v. Halverson, 103 Minn. 265 , , 14 L.R.A.(N.S.)

We think the jury might reject the testimony of these witnesses (Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ), and might find that deceased was at his bench when the fire started, and that he was .guilty of no negligence.

See Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Woodworth Elevator Co. v. Theis, supra, page 2, .

Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; State v. Halverson, 103 Minn. 265 , , 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 947, 123 Am.

Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , .

It is true that there is a limit beyond which the court will not permit a jury to go in rejecting the testimony of a witness who is unimpeached and uncontradicted (Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Second Nat.

Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Anderson v. Liljengren, 50 Minn. 3 , .

Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Anderson v. Liljengren, 50 Minn. 3 , ; Lang v. Ferrant, 55 Minn. 415 , ; Basting v. Northern Trust Co., 65 Minn. 495 , .

Co., 21 Minn. 215 ; Hawkins v. *75 Sauby, 48 Minn. 69 , ; Merchants Nat.

Woodham v. First N. Bank, 48 Minn. 67 , .