Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1872

Hinkle v. Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad

Hinkle v. Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 15, 1872 · Berry
18 Minn. 297 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

James Smith, Jr., for Appellant., Davis & O’Brien, for Respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1880, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Hinkle v. Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

Berry, J.

Whether certain work was performed by plaintiff for defendant, was the important question in this case. It seems to us that there was evidence having a reasonable tendency to show that the work was done by plaintiff for defendant, and, therefore, we perceive no reason for taking this case out of the usual rule in accordance with which we have so frequently refused to set aside verdicts under like circumstances.

■ The remark of the judge below in his opinion upon the motion for a new trial, seems to us just, as applied to this *300case. He says, “ there was evidence in the case from which the jury might infer that the work was done for this defendant, and if they have seen fit in the exercise of their peculiar right of determining the weight of evidence, to look with more favor upon the plaintiff’s evidence, than upon the explanatory testimony of the defendant, it is not for the court to overrule their decision.”

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.