Minnesota Supreme Court, 1900

Taylor v. St. Paul City Railway Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 26, 1900 · Brown

80 Minn. 331; 83 N.W. 189; 1900 Minn. LEXIS 500 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Munn & Thygeson, for appellant., Childs, Edgerton & Wiclmire, 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 1902, 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.

Jenkinson v. Koester (Minn. 1902)
Powell v. Luders (Minn. 1901)

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

BROWN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial after verdict for plaintiff. The action is to recover damages for personal injuries caused, as plaintiff claims, by reason of *332the negligence of defendant’s servants in the manner of the operation of one of its street cars, which collided with plaintiff’s wagon. We have examined the evidence, and, though it is not the most convincing, are satisfied that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. At least, it is not so clearly and palpably against the verdict as to justify interference by this court. An examination of the record discloses no such exception as is pointed out by the second assignment of error, and no assignment of error to cover the exception mentioned in subdivision 11 of the appellant’s brief. And although the court below did charge the jury that they were at liberty, under the evidence, to find defendant’s motoneer guilty of wanton and wilful negligence, the error, if it was error, is not presented by any assignment of error, and cannot be considered.

This cause was set down for oral argument, in violation of the rules, — the amount involved not exceeding $100, — and no statutory costs will be allowed respondent. Vaule v. Steenerson, 63 Minn. 110, 65 N. W. 257.

Order affirmed.

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