Mankato Lime & Stone Co. v. Craig
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 1905, 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.
- Merchants' State Bank v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co. (Minn. 1905)
- Gopher Oil Co., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California (D. Minn. 1991)
- Barber v. Robinson (Minn. 1901)
- United States v. Dagoman (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1915)
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
It is to be presumed, in the absence of any showing or even intimation to the contrary, that the witnesses whose fees for attendance and mileage were regularly taxed by the clerk of the district court were brought to attend the trial of this cause in good faith, and not with any improper motive. Both were sworn at the trial, and both testified. The only objection made to the allowance of their fees was that neither gave testimony which was material or relevant or competent upon any issue made by the pleadings. Counsel seeks to apply a test which would, as stated by the court below, compel a litigant to determine in advance and at his peril whether the testimony of his witnesses will be material, relevant, and competent. The test which counsel seeks to apply is not recognized in any of the authorities, so far as we know. Much must be left to the integrity of counsel in requesting or compelling the attendance of witnesses. If the party acts in good faith, the mere fact that the testimony is immaterial or inadmissible will not deprive him of the fees necessarily paid or incurred. This is the rule where witnesses are not even sworn. Farmer v. Storer, 28 Mass. 241.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.