The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-04-24
.VERDICIS SET ASIDE
The Supreme Court Reverses Orders
in Two Railroad Personal
Injury Suits. ,ssss x ~
A New Trial Is Granted in Case
Involving Total of Fifty
three Dollars.
4

railroad companies were thrown OUT ny
the supreme court to-day.
One case was that of Truax against the
500 road, which was brought up from
Wright county, and resulted in verdict
of $15255. The trial court reduced this
to 100000, but on the appeal, the supreme
court reverses the order denying Judgment
for the defendant. The syllabus says:
Allan l.. Truax respondent, Vs. Minneapolis, st.
Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
appellant.
depot Platform into a passing mail car, lost
his balance and fell between the platform ana
the motion Of the defendant for Judgment not
q wthstanding the verdict should have been grant
ed the that m nc fbs
pro1imate cause CT the injury.
Plaintiff Was Negligent.
The second case, Kemp against the
Northern Pacific, got verdict for $625 for
injuries caused by train colliding with
the plaintiff on his load Of hay. The su-
: prenle court throws out this case, which
came up from Morrison county, the syl-
labus reading as follows:
c. ". Kemp. respondent. VS.. Northern Pacific
Railway Company, appellant. 90
In an action for injuries from, collision with
se s ssWsy s1aans 7 e that aesss
dition of the crossing was not the pro1mate
cause of the injury, but that respondent vas
guilty Of contribut0ry negligence, and appellant
was. entitled to judgment Notwithstanding the
verdict. y
Order reversed. lewis, ..
F.. New Trial In Small Case.
A new trial is granted in the st. Paul
case of Noble against the Great Northern,
which was originally for $53 worth OF
clothes lost out of the plaintiffs locker
when an employee of the road. The syllabus
says:
Guy W. Noble. respondent VS.. Great Northern
Railway Company. appellant
for netTithsandins the findings or for
new trial in a case tried by the court without a
Jury and appeaed from the Yh ers afs de-
pealabe as one In effect denying motion for
new trial, the motion for judgment being unau-
second-The findings Of fact in this case are
insufficient to support the legal conclusion that
alleged to have been delivered to it by the plain
tiff for safe keeping. Nor is the evidence SUI
fcient to establish such liability.
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Start, G. j.
verdIcts Against Contractors
Two verdicts against Minneapolis corpo-
rations were affirmed. One is against
Winston Bros. for $4,000. The plaintiff,
Roe, was a brakeman construction
train at Knapp Wis. and was injured by
the engineers backing against car up
which he was climbing, without warning,
> The syllabus:
George Roe, respondent, VS.. Philip B. Winston,
Fenda G. Winston and William o. Winston.
copartners as Winston Brothers. appellants.
Certain special verdicts held not to be In
consistent with the general verdict; -,
Order affirmed. Lewis, d.
Employee Gets Verdict.
The Peavey Elevator company has to
i pay a $4,000 verdict in a. damage case
coming up from Sibley county. The syl-
q labus says: .t'.@
:, Ellen Ready Administrative Of the, estate Of
: r. 4. Ready. deceased, respondent, vs.. Pea
vey. Elevator company, appellant
that the alleged negligence of the defendant,
the contributory negligence of plaintiffs intes-
tate and whether he assumed the risks Incl
dent to the work he doing were. under the
evidence. questions of fact; that the general
verdict is. sustained by the evidence and it is
not inconsistent with the special finding returned
by the jury; and that the instructions Of the
trial court to he jury were free from reversible
errors. Order affirmed.
Amendment Not RetroactIon.
A constitutional question is decided in
the case of Brown VS.. Hughes, sent up
from LIE Sueur county. The defendant
secured a judgment in 1892 against the
plaintiff. and levied on his homestead.
The claim was for labor and material, and
1t was furnished before the Amendment
of 1888 was adopted, permitting such a.
levy on exempted, property: The court
holds that this amendment was not retro
active, and that the homestead could not
be levied upon. The syllabus says:
William NJ. Brown, respondent, vs.. B. c. Hughes,
appellant ::
First-I,aws are not to be construed retrospect
ivey or to have retrospective effect, unless IT
shall clearly appear that 1t intended by
the enactng body and unless such construction is
absolutely necessary to give meaning to the Ian
guage used,
Second-The amendment to article l. section
H. Of the constitution. adopted Nov. 6. 1888 re-
lating to exemption from seizure and sale of
property for debts and liabilities. wholly
prospective in Its operation and the collection of
debts contracted entered into for work done
or material furnished in the construction of a
building upon the debtors homestead prior to Its
adoption, cannot be enforced under its provl.
sions against such homestead
Order affirmed. :. Collins, ].