Minnesota Supreme Court, 1949

Magistad v. Potter

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 18, 1949 · Peterson, Gallagher

36 N.W.2d 400; 227 Minn. 570; 1949 Minn. LEXIS 515 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Alfred E. Rietz, Lowell Hastings , and Warren Newcome , for appellants Chicago North Western Railway Company and L.E. Peterson. Herbert F. Horner and Stanley V. Shanedling , for appellant C.M. Potter, d. b. a . Potter Grain and Fuel Company. Fred A. Ossanna, Irving H. Green , and Charles T. Hvass , 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 1975, 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

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. (Minn. 1956)
Wild v. Rarig (Minn. 1975)
Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transportation Co. (Minn. 1954)
State v. Gilreath (Ariz. 1971)
Reese v. Ross & Ross Auctioneers, Inc. (Minn. 1967)
Brabeck v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. (Minn. 1962)
Maher v. Roisner (Minn. 1953)
Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. (Minn. 1953)
State v. Morgan (Minn. 1952)

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.

In this action for personal injuries, separate verdicts of $45,000 each were rendered in favor of plaintiff against the defendants Chicago & North Western Railway Company, L. E. Peterson, and C. M. Potter, individually and as sole trader as the Potter Grain and Fuel Company. The case is here on separate appeals denying their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts or a new trial.

Error is assigned on misconduct of counsel for plaintiff in his argument to the jury. Since this court takes the view that a new trial must be granted on that ground, we refrain from passing upon the motions for judgment for the reason that the issues of fact are such that there may be further evidence introduced on another trial which may affect the question of recovery on the merits. 3 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 5082, and cases cited under note 8.

Exceptions to counsel’s remarks to the jury were neither taken at the time they were made nor at the close of his argument, as permitted by the district court rule, but only after the court had charged the jury. However, we regard the argument as so prejudicial and so calculated to excite prejudice and passion that the trial court, of its own motion, should have taken action upon it. The accusations of perjury against plaintiff’s witnesses by defendants’ counsel were not sufficient provocation to justify the misconduct. *572 The court did not take action. Consequently there must be a new trial.

Orders reversed.

Dissenting Opinion

Peterson, Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent upon the authority of Eilola v. Oliver I. Min. Co. 201 Minn. 77, 275 N. W. 408.

Mr. Justice Thomas Gallagher took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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