Barker v. Todd
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 1908, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- American Engine Co. v. Crowley (Minn. 1908)
- Valerius v. Richard (Minn. 1894)
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 first, second, and third assignments of error embrace objections to certain instructions to the jury. But no exceptions were taken at the trial to any portions of the charge of the court. It appears from the settled case that the exceptions now relied on were made after verdict, upon the motion for a new trial, and were then noted, allowed, and considered by the court. But such exceptions were then too late, and are ineffectual for any purpose. The defendant must be deemed to have acquiesced in the charge as given, by failing to object and call the attention of the court to the objectionable portions of the charge in time to enable it to reconsider, explain, or correct them before the trial was completed. Roehl v. Baasen, 8 Minn. 9, (26, 33;) Wilson v. Minn., etc., Ins. Ass’n, 36 Minn. 112, (30 N. W. Rep. 401.) The motion was denied, and plaintiff cannot complain of the decision thereof, though the exceptions were improperly allowed. But since they are nugatory, they cannot be insisted on by the defendant here, as ground for granting a new trial.
The fourth and last assignment of error is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. But this point was not considered by the trial court on the motion for a new trial, and does not appear to have
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.