Minnesota Supreme Court, 1914

Teryll v. St. Paul City Railway Co.

Teryll v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 22, 1914
125 Minn. 528; 147 N.W. 273; 1914 Minn. LEXIS 816 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

W. D. Dwyer, for appellant., John J. Kirby, 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 1954, 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

Teryll v. St. Paul City Railway Co.

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

Per Curiam.

This case is here for the second time. On the former trial plaintiff had a ver*529diet for $300, which this court .set aside as grossly excessive. Teryll v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 121 Minn. 530, 141 N. W. 304. Subsequently the parties submitted the cause to the same trial court for determination upon the evidence introduced at the other trial. The court made findings and awarded plaintiff damages in the sum of $150. Defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the reported case.

Defendant’s assignments of error challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings in several regards, and also the amount awarded. The findings are as favorable to plaintiff, it would seem, as it is possible to make them, and in some respects on evidentiary matters go beyond the proofs, but not sufficiently to warrant a reversal. The damages are also to the utmost limit. However, in line with the determination in Glewwe against this defendant, 117 Minn. 471, 136 N. W. 2, and under the familiar rules on appeal that the action of the trial court will not be reversed except for clear abuse of discretion and it is insufficient to justify a reversal that this court would have been better satisfied with a smaller recovery (Dunnell, Minn. Prac. § 1024), we reluctantly affirm the order.

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