¶1We have examined with care the quite lengthy record in this case, and we think that the court below was fully justified upon the evidence in granting a new trial. And we do not feel disposed tp depart from the rule laid down in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, (Gil. 398,) that great weight will be given by this court to the opinion of the judge who presided on the trial in the court below. Manifestly there was no abuse of discretion of the trial judge, and his order granting a new trial is affirmed.
55 Minn. 289
Sheehan v. Dowling
Decided November 17, 1893
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1893-11-17
Appeal by defendant, James B. Dowling, from an order of the District Court of Bamsey County, Chas. D. Kerr, J., made March 25, 1893, granting plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. The plaintiffs, Timothy D. Sheehan and Edward J. Cannon were partners in business practising law at St. Paul and were retained by, and rendered professional services for defendant, for which he by special contract agreed to pay them $2,000.
Relies on Hicks v. Stone
Decided 1893-11-17