Minnesota Supreme Court, 1903

Greengard v. Burton

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 9, 1903

88 Minn. 252; 92 N.W. 931; 1903 Minn. LEXIS 388 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Lindbergh & Blanchard, for appellant., E. F. Shaw and E. P. Adams, 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 1955, 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.

Bethany Fellowship, Inc. v. Murk (Minn. 1955)
Parrish v. Peoples (Minn. 1943)
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. (Minn. 1913)

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to recover for wages claimed to have been earned by plaintiff while clerking for defendant, and also to recover a small amount, in addition, on other matters which need no particular mention. A jury trial was had, and a verdict for plaintiff returned for the sum of $150.. Defendant’s counsel moved for a new trial, which was denied, and this appeal is from a judgment entered upon the verdict.

A large number of assignments of error have been argued, but we need not consider them in detail. From The record it appears that the court below, for some reason which does not appear, failed to charge or instruct the jury upon any of the issues, or as to what they were, or even as to the burden of proof. The cause seems to have been submitted without the questions involved being adequately understood by the jurors. To some ex*253tent, counsel for defendant was responsible for this omission to submit the issues properly, for their duty to their client required an effort on their part to have the jurors instructed so that they might intelligently pass upon the 'facts. But notwithstanding this, we do not think the case is governed by the rule recently stated in Applebee v. Perry, 87 Minn. 242, 91 N. W. 893. Under the circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the facts should again be submitted to a jury. It is so ordered, and also that no statutory costs be taxed in this court.

Judgment reversed.

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