Case Name: Edward Byrne vs. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1882-06-07
Citations: 29 Minn. 200
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward Byrne vs. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 200–200

Head Matter:
Edward Byrne vs. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company.
June 7, 1882.
Motion for New Trial — Insufficiency of Evidence. — The objection that there is no evidence to support the verdict cannot be raised in this court where there has been no motion for a new trial in the court below.
Plaintiff, being owner of land on both sides of a natural watercourse, crossed by defendant’s railway, brought this action in the district court for Le Sueur county to recover damages for the flooding of his land, occasioned by the railroad embankment. At. the trial before Macdonald, J., and a jury, the plaintiff had a verdict, on which judgment was entered, and the defendant appealed.
L. L. Baxter, for appellant.
O’Brien é Wilson, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mitchell, J.
The objection that there is no evidence to support the verdict cannot be raised in this court where there has been no motion for a new trial in the court below. Kelly v. Rogers, 21 Minn. 146.
The subject of inquiry being the value of the crop of grass destroyed on the, meadow of plaintiff, the plaintiff, as a witness in his own behalf, was asked, "What was the value of the growing grass on that land, had it not been destroyed, as it was, by this flooding water?" To this evidence defendant objected, on the ground that the witness had not been shown to be competent to testify on the subject of value. The objection being overruled, defendant excepted. The evidence was properly admitted. It appears that the witness was a practical farmer, conversant with the quantity and quality of the grass grown on this land, and acquainted with the market value of hay — the use for which this grass was designed to be used, had it matured. Under such a state of facts the witness was competent to testify on the subject inquired of.
Judgment affirmed.