Farrell v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co.
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 1956, 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
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Waldo v. St. Paul City Railway Co. (Minn. 1955)
- Benson v. Northland Transportation Co. (Minn. 1937)
- State v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. (Minn. 1956)
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
There having been no motion for a new trial, the only available assignment of error in this case is that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the action when the evidence was closed. While it seems to us that the decided preponderance of evidence was on the side of defendant, yet we do not think there was such a lack of proof on part of plaintiff as would have justified the court in taking the case from the jury. There was no doubt but that defendant directed this earth to be removed, and was to pay for it. The question was whether -this contract was made with Woods & Lovejoy or with plaintiff. If the jury believed the testimony of plaintiff, it would have justified them in finding that the contract- was with him. Again, while there was no doubt that plaintiff drew from Woods & Lovejoy the money to pay the teams and men-that removed this earth, yet there is some conflict in the evidence as to whether this work was included in the estimates of work done by the subcontractor, plaintiff’s son. If it was not, then all the money drawn from Woods & Lovejoy would be presumably charged to him on his original contract, and thus leave this work unpaid for.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.