Waldron v. Page

6 Citing cases

  1. Storley v. Armour Co.

    107 F.2d 499 (8th Cir. 1939)   Cited 32 times

    The question, so far as we are concerned, is of academic importance only, except as to the claim of Frithjof Selberg hereinafter referred to. Sussex Land Live Stock Co. v. Midwest Refining Co., 8 Cir., 294 F. 597, 34 A.L.R. 249; City of Harrisonville v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 61 F.2d 210; Manhattan Oil Co. v. Mosby, 8 Cir., 72 F.2d 840; City of Norwood v. Sheen, 126 Ohio St. 482, 186 N.E. 102, 87 A.L.R. 1375, and cases cited; Baltimore Potomac R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U.S. 317, 327, 2 S.Ct. 719, 27 L.Ed. 739; Oklahoma City v. Tyetenicz, 175 Okla. 228, 52 P.2d 849; Oklahoma City v. Dyer, 177 Okla. 620, 61 P.2d 660; Johnston v. Galva, 316 Ill. 598, 147 N.E. 453, 38 A.L.R. 1384, and cases cited; Waldron v. Page, 191 Minn. 302, 253 N.W. 894; Moorhead v. Minneapolis Seed Co., 139 Minn. 11, 165 N.W. 484, L.R.A. 1918C, 391, Ann.Cas. 1918E, 481; Vogt v. City of Grinnell, 123 Iowa 332, 98 N.W. 782; City of Ottumwa v. Nicholson, 161 Iowa 473, 143 N.W. 439, L.R.A. 1916E, 983; Stovern v. Town of Calmar, 204 Iowa 983, 216 N.W. 112; Quinn v. Chicago, M. St. P.R. Co., 23 S.D. 126, 120 N.W. 884, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 789; City of Madisonville v. Nisbit, 239 Ky. 366, 39 S.W.2d 690; 8 R.C.L. 483; 20 R.C.L. 470; 27 R.C.L. 1122; 15 Am.Jur. 519.

  2. Dempsey v. Meighen

    251 Minn. 562 (Minn. 1958)   Cited 7 times

    In discussing the question of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, it is unnecessary to further detail the evidence in order to demonstrate the absolute correctness of the trial court's findings of fact. Barnum v. Jefferson, 109 Minn. 1, 122 N.W. 453; Knutson v. Lasher, 219 Minn. 594, 18 N.W.2d 688. This court's duty is performed when it has considered all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings and has determined whether the findings are reasonably sustained by the evidence as a whole. Ehmke v. Hill, 236 Minn. 60, 51 N.W.2d 811; Board of Education v. Sand, 227 Minn. 202, 34 N.W.2d 689; Waldron v. Page, 191 Minn. 302, 253 N.W. 894; Callahan v. City of Duluth, 197 Minn. 403, 267 N.W. 361; 1 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) §§ 411 and 415. The trial court heard and observed the witnesses against the background of a bitter family dispute and is in a better position than are we to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

  3. Kopischke v. C. St. P. M. O. Ry. Co.

    40 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. 1950)   Cited 16 times
    Involving a damaged pickup truck

    " This latter rule was applied in Waldron v. Page, 191 Minn. 302, 253 N.W. 894, and in Hanson v. Hall, 202 Minn. 381, 279 N.W. 227. In the Engholm case, no question of loss of use arose.

  4. Midland Co-op. Wholesale v. Range Co-op. Oil Assn

    274 N.W. 624 (Minn. 1937)   Cited 6 times

    The evidence with respect to these matters is in dispute, and the court below made findings in favor of defendant upon both propositions. The findings of fact are sustained by the evidence and are final here, 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. Supps. 1932, 1934) § 411; Haedge v. Gaver, 173 Minn. 207, 217 N.W. 109; Sommers v. City of St. Paul, 183 Minn. 545, 237 N.W. 427; Waldron v. Page, 191 Minn. 302, 253 N.W. 894; S. Bader Sons v. Gensler, 191 Minn. 571, 255 N.W. 97. Other assignments of error have been considered and are found to be without merit.

  5. In re Trusteeship Under Will of Melgaard

    200 Minn. 493 (Minn. 1937)   Cited 17 times

    Sommers v. City of St. Paul, 183 Minn. 545, 551, 237 N.W. 427, 430, in which it was held that the rule applied "even if this court might be inclined to draw different inferences." Haedge v. Gaver, 173 Minn. 207, 217 N.W. 109; Waldron v. Page, 191 Minn. 302, 253 N.W. 894; S. Bader Sons v. Gensler, 191 Minn. 571, 255 N.W. 97. The order should be affirmed.

  6. Liederbach v. Pickett

    273 N.W. 77 (Minn. 1937)   Cited 2 times

    The rule applies to inferences from undisputed facts. Findings are not to be disturbed unless the evidence, taken as a whole, furnishes no substantial support for them. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. Supps. 1932, 1934) § 411; Haedge v. Gaver, 173 Minn. 207, 217 N.W. 109; Sommers v. City of St. Paul, 183 Minn. 545, 551, 237 N.W. 427, 430, in which, in the consideration of written or documentary evidence, it was said that the rule applies "even if this court might be inclined to draw different inferences"; Waldron v. Page, 191 Minn. 302, 253 N.W. 894; S. Bader Sons v. Gensler, 191 Minn. 571, 255 N.W. 97. Our inquiry should be whether there is evidence to sustain the findings made below. If this inquiry is answered in the affirmative, there should be an affirmance in this case. 2.