Smith v. Wilson
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 1907, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Corrigan v. San Marcos Hotel Co. (9th Cir. 1950)
- Loy v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. (Wash. 1913)
- Youngquist v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. (Minn. 1907)
- Briggs v. Todd (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1899)
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
The point that the verdict was not justified by the evidence presents the question whether it is apparent, upon the review of the case, that the testimony of the plaintiff as to the possession of the money alleged to have been taken from his person, and as to the fact of the robbery, was unworthy of belief by the jury. If it was credible, it clearly justified the verdict. Its most apparent infirmity was that in some important particulars it was different from the testimony of the same witness upon a former trial, as to the sources from which he received the money. The discrediting facts, which the testimony of the plaintiff tended to explain away, were properly placed before the jury for their consideration. They are not sufficient to justify us, upon a review of the record, in setting aside thé verdict which the trial court has refused to disturb.
There is nothing in the alleged negligence of the plaintiff which was not clearly subject to the determination of the jury upon the evidence. The fact that, sleeping in a room at the hotel occupied
The evidence went to show, and after verdict it must be taken to have been the fact, that the defendant had not complied with the-statutory conditions so as to have protected himself from the common-law liability of innkeepers. The responsibility of the innkeeper in respect to the money of his guest was not limited to such an amount as was necessary for the guest’s travelling expenses. Armistead v. Wilde, 17 Q. B. 261; Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. 417; Wilkins v. Earle, 44 N. Y. 172; Quinton v. Courtney, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 40; Redf. Carr. 598-605; Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557, 600.
The alleged impropriety in the remarks of the respondent’s attorney in his argument to the jury has not been shown by the settled case, and will not be considered upon affidavit merely.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.