Case ID: minn_116/html/0540-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cukiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALONZO ECHOLS v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.
    
    December 24, 1911.
    Nos. 17,446—(181).
    Carrier — verdict sustained by evidence.
    Action against the initial carrier for negligence in the transportation of a carload of potatoes. Verdict in favor of plaintiff. Appeal from an order denying a new trial. Held: The evidence, although conflicting, fairly sustained the verdict and the amount thereof. [Reporter.]
    Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $350 damages to a carload of sweet potatoes caused by alleged delay in transportation and delivery beyond a reasonable time. The answer admitted that defendant received the potatoes for transportation, but denied the other allegations of the complaint; it alleged that it and all connecting common carriers were without negligence or fault in the transportation of the potatoes, and if any damage occurred in such transportation neither defendant nor any connecting carrier was liable therefor. The reply alleged that defendant waived any advantage due to the failure of plaintiff to make written claim within thirty days after delivery of the potatoes. The case was tried before Leary, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $375.52. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, it appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      liichard & Goe, for appellant.
    
      Stiles é Devaney, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 133 N. W. 1132.
    
   Pee Cukiam.

This action was brought, in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, to recover damages from the defendant, the initial carrier, for loss due to the negligence of the defendant and the connecting carrier in transporting a carload of sweet potatoes for the plaintiff from Ullin, Illinois, to St. Paul, Minnesota. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $375.52, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

The sole question presented by the record in this court is whether the verdict is sustained by the evidence. The defendant contends that the evidence fails to show any negligence on its part, and that in no event was the plaintiff under the evidence entitled to a verdict in excess of $207.30. The evidence, although conflicting in material matters, fairly sustains the verdict and the amount thereof.

Order affirmed.