Minnesota Supreme Court, 1913

Weiss v. Peterson

Weiss v. Peterson
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 19, 1913 · Hallam
124 Minn. 84; 144 N.W. 450; 1913 Minn. LEXIS 491 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Morton Barrows, for appellant., Harvey O. Sargeant and J. W. Finch, 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 1923, 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

Weiss v. Peterson

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

Hallam, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of the premature starting of a passenger elevator.

The only testimony as to the circumstances of the accident was that of plaintiff and one other witness produced by him. Defendant elicited evidence of circumstances tending to discredit this testimony, and the jury found for defendant. The trial court granted a new trial “upon the ground that the verdict is not justified by the evidence.” The propriety of this order is the only question before us for review. The record presents no other.

The attitude of this court on such appeals is well settled. Such an order will not be reversed unless the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict. Marsh v. Webber, 13 Minn. 99 *85(109); Hicks v. Stone, 13 Miim. 398 (434); Hull v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. 116 Minn. 349, 356, 133 N. W. 852.

It would serve no useful purpose to review the evidence in detail. We have examined it with care, and we are convinced that it is not such as to warrant us in. disturbing the order of the trial court.

Order affirmed.

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