of witnesses who testified that they did not see the blocks in position. But one of the defendant's witnesses on cross-examination admitted that he did not see the blocks under the wheels, and the other did not testify that the blocks were properly placed. The credibility of the witnesses was for the jury to determine. There were circunstances which tended to sustain the plaintiff's allegation and within the rules stated and applied in Olson v Great Northern Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 155, 71 N. W. 5, the trial court was justified in denying the motion for judgment in favor of the defendant notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed. MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. COUNTY OF MARTIN.1 May 8, 1908. Nos. 15,568-(112). The county treasurer of Martin county being unable to determine whether plaintiff company was entitled to record a certain mortgage in its favor without payment of the registration tax required by Laws 1907, c. 328, the treasurer endorsed the fact of his uncertainty upon the instrument and the company paid the amount of the tax to the clerk of the district court for that county. The plaintiff company having brought the hearing of the matter whether the amount should be returned to it before the district court, the facts being stipulated, the court, Quinn, J., made findings and ordered that the proceeding be dismissed and judgment be entered in favor of defendant. From this order plaintiff appealed. Affirmed. Stuart & Finstad and Lane & Waterman, for appellant. E. T. Young. Attorney General, J. E. Palmer, County Attorney, and E. C. Dean, for respondent. PER CURIAM. In the case of the Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. County of Martin, supra, page 179, 116 N. W. 572, the constitutionality of Laws 1907, p. 448, c. 328, was sustained. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the order appealed from in this case is affirmed. 1 Reported in 116 N. W. 575. NICK ADAMS V. COUNTY OF BROWN. WILLIAM METZEN v. SAME.1 May 15, 1908. Nos. 15,487, 15,488-(4, 5). In proceedings for the construction of a public ditch plaintiffs appealed to the district court for Brown county from the awards of the county commissioners, on the ground that the amount awarded them respectively for damages was insufficient. The appeals having been tried, the court, Olsen, J., made findings and ordered judgment in favor of appellant Adams in the sum of $250, and in favor of appellant Metzen in the sum of $450. From these orders, plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed. Eckstein & Flor and Wm. H. Oppenheimer, for appellants. PER CURIAM. These appeals involve the same questions as were presented and determined in Prahl v. County of Brown, supra, page 227, 116 N. W. 483, all of which were submitted together as one case, and the same conclusion is reached. The order appealed from in each case is therefore affirmed. RODERICK MCCLELLAN v. LOUIS F. DOW COMPANY.2 May 15, 1908. Nos. 15,541-(52). Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $5,000 for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff's minor son. The case was tried be fore Brill, J., who directed a verdict for the defendant. From an order granting a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed. C. D. & R. D. O'Brien and E. W. Williams, for appellant. PER CURIAM. The question at issue before the trial court was whether appellant was liable to respondent's minor son because of injuries received by him while 1 Reported in 116 N. W. 484. 2 Reported in 116 N. W. 1134. riding in a freight elevator in appellant's building for the purpose of delivering certain merchandise to appellant's tenants occupying the third floor. At the close of the case the court directed a verdict for appellant upon the ground that it appeared from the evidence that no contractual relation existed between the boy and appellant, and that there was no contract between appellant and the tenants which gave the boy any right to ride on the elevator, and that he was only a licensee. The trial court granted a new trial upon the ground that the court had been mistaken as to the effect of the evidence; that the evidence warranted a finding that the tenants had a right to have merchandise carried up in the freight elevator; and that respondent's son had a right to assume that it was intended he should use the elevator for the purpose of delivering such merchandise. The only question raised by the assignment of errors is: Does it conclusively appear from the evidence that the boy was a licensee? We have examined the record and are of opinion that it does not conclusively so appear; that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the allegations of the complaint, and justified the trial court in directing a new trial upon the ground stated. Affirmed. JOSEPH KOCHTA V. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.1 May 15, 1908. Nos. 15,586-(125). Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $10,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Hallam, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $650. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed. N. M. Thygeson and W. H. Bennett, for appellant. PER CURIAM. The questions involved in the appeal of this case are similar to those in Jelinek v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., supra, page 247, 116 N. W. 480, and that case is therefore controlling. Affirmed. 1 Reported in 116 N. W. 482. JOHN FREEMAN and Another v. CORNELIUS LANE and Another.1 May 15, 1908. Nos. 15,592-(42). Action in the district court for Hennepin county to foreclose a lien for $172, for work and material furnished in the reconstruction of a certain building. The case was tried before Simpson, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $140. From an order denying the motion of defendant Lane for a modification of the order for judgment or for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed. Thos. C. Daggett, for appellant. A. S. Keyes and Henry Ebert, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs sought to recover the reasonable value of work performed and materials furnished by the plaintiffs in the reconstruction of a described building in the sum of $172. Defendant's answer admitted the claim to the extent of the alleged reasonable value, viz., $105, and tendered that sum. The court found for the plaintiffs in the sum of $140. This appeal was taken from the order denying a motion of the defendant Lane for a modification of the order for judgment for $105, or for a new trial. The basis of the appeal is that the judgment of $140 is an arbitrary decision of the court not based upon any substantial evidence. An examination of the record has shown that the testimony would easily have sustained a larger judgment than the amount ordered. The trial court was in the best position to determine the value of the controverted items. Plaintiffs have taken no appeal. Defendant suffered no possible prejudice. In accordance with the familiar rule on the subject, the order of the trial court must be and is affirmed. 1 Reported in 116 N. W. 1134. 104 M.-34 MALISSA M. SCOTT v. JULIUS H. SHAW.1 May 15, 1908. Nos. 15,597-(53). Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $10,284 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Brooks, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $500. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed. James A. Peterson, for appellant. PER CURIAM. Respondent recovered a verdict for $500 upon the ground that appellant negligently detached the water pipes from the waterback in a kitchen stove in a house where she was employed as housekeeper. Appellant contends that the evidence was manifestly and palpably against the verdict, being of such an indefinite and questionable character that it should not be received in a court of justice to sustain the allegations of the complaint. We have read the record and are of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to support the findings of the jury, and the decision of the trial court in refusing a new trial. It was fairly established that the stove exploded by reason of generation of steam from water left in the waterback, and that respondent's injuries were the result of such explosion. While it is true that respondent did not agree that the workman who testified he made the disconnection was in fact the man who did the work, and that she pointed out a man in the court room whom she thought looked like the person who did the work, these discrepancies were not necessarily fatal to her case, nor was ber counsel called upon to put such party on the stand in order to determine whether or not he was the one who did the work. It does not conclusively appear from the evidence that the mere fact of disconnecting the water pipes necessarily drained the waterback, and that there could have been no water left therein. Whether the plumber who made the disconnection was negligent in the manner charged was a question properly submitted to the jury, and their conclusion as to the character and weight of the evidence is final. Affirmed. 1 Reported in 116 N. W. 1135. |