Minnesota Supreme Court, 1882

Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.

Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 7, 1882 · Mitchell
29 Minn. 200; 12 N.W. 698; 1882 Minn. LEXIS 88 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

L. L. Baxter, for appellant., O’Brien é Wilson, 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 1934, 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

Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite 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

Mitchell, J.

The objection that there is no evidence to support the verdict cannot be raised in this court where there has been no motion for a new trial in the court below. Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 146.

The subject of inquiry being the value of the crop of grass destroyed on the, meadow of plaintiff, the plaintiff, as a witness in his own behalf, was asked, “What was the value of the growing grass on that land, had it not been destroyed, as it was, by this flooding water?” To this evidence defendant objected, on the ground that the witness had not been shown to be competent to testify on the subject of value. The objection being overruled, defendant excepted. The evidence was properly admitted. It appears that the witness was a practical farmer, conversant with the quantity and quality of the grass grown on this land, and acquainted with the market value of hay — the use for which this grass was designed to be used, had it matured. Under such a state of facts the witness was competent to testify on the subject inquired of.

Judgment affirmed.

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