Case ID: minn_116/html/0522-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MAX SCHOEN v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY and Another.
    
    November 10, 1911.
    Nos. 17,370—(35).
    Judgment non obstante.
    Former decision adhered to. The evidence being conflicting on the chief issues of the' ease, defendants were not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. [Reporter.]
    After the former appeal, the case was tried before Bunn, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $5,000. The jury also answered the special question submitted to it: “Did the engine stop between Minnehaha street and Reaney street, on the occasion of the accident?” in the affirmative. From an order denying defendants’ motions for a new trial, they appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      How, Butler & Mitchell, for appellants.
    
      H. A. Laughran and T. P. McN amara, for respondent.
    
      
      
         Reported in 132 N. W. 1135.
    
   Per Curiam.

This action was before the court in a former appeal, 112 Minn. 38, 127 N. W. 433. It was there held that the evidence made the issues of negligence and contributory negligence questions of fact, and the cause was remanded for a new trial. Plaintiff recovered a verdict on the second trial. The trial court granted a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify a verdict for plaintiff, but denied defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defendants appealed.

The only question presented is whether on the evidence presented defendants are entitled to judgment. While new and additional evidence was produced by defendants on the second trial, there was no substantial change in that offered by plaintiff. A careful examination of the record leads to the conclusion that the former decision that a question of fact was presented for the consideration of the jury should be followed and adhered to. The evidence is conflicting upon the principal issues in the case. Order affirmed.

Bunn, J., having tried the ease below, took no part.