Case Name: INEZ TERYLL v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1914-05-22
Citations: 125 Minn. 528
Docket Number: Nos. 18,577 — (117)
Parties: INEZ TERYLL v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
INEZ TERYLL v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.
May 22, 1914.
Nos. 18,577 — (117).
Damages — award sustained.
Under the rule that the decision of the trial court will not be reversed upon appeal except for clear abuse of discretion, an award of $150 damages was reluctantly affirmed. [Reporter.]
After the former appeal, reported in 121 Minn. 530, 141 N. W. 304, the action was tried before Finehout, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $150. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
W. D. Dwyer, for appellant.
John J. Kirby, for respondent.
Reported in 147 N. W. 273.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case is here for the second time. On the former trial plaintiff had a ver diet 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.