Minnesota Supreme Court, 1882

Peterson v. Faust

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 17, 1882 · Vanderburgh

30 Minn. 22; 14 N.W. 64; 1882 Minn. LEXIS 7 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

H. N. Setzer, for appellant,, Uelancl é Simes, 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 1920, 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

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Jones v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. (Minn. 1889)
Cirkel v. Croswell (Minn. 1887)
Northwestern Detective Agency, Inc. v. Winona Hotel Co. (Minn. 1920)
Link v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (Wyo. 1892)
Plyer v. German-American Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1888)
Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. (Minn. 1885)
Austin v. Northern Pacific Railroad (Minn. 1885)
Eldridge v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. (Minn. 1884)

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

Vanderburgh, J.

The only question for the consideration of the court on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s application for a new trial upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence. All other points were waived upon the argument. The affidavit of the witness containing'a statement of such evidence was fully met and answered by the counter-affidavits in plaintiff’s behalf on the motion. Such .counter-affidavits were properly received. Finch v. Green, 16 Minn. 315, (355.) Upon this record we are unable to see that there is any reasonable probability that the result would be affected by the alleged new evidence if a new trial were had. Having tried the case, the court which heard this motion was in a position to exercise a proper discretion in determining the merits of the application for a new trial upon conflicting affidavits. We can discover no good ground for questioning the correctness of its decision. Mead v. Constans, 5 Minn. 134, (171;) Lampsen v. Brander, 28 Minn. 528.

Judgment affirmed.

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