47 Minn. 564 | Minn. | 1891
The only real contention on this appeal is whether the verdict was not larger than it should have been. If the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, — and as to that the verdict must be taken as final, — the amount which should be allowed depended upon the fact as to the quantity of lumber which a portable steam sawmill of the plaintiff was capable of sawing in any given time. If the evidence warranted the jury in the conclusion that it had the capacity of sawing 8,000 feet per day, and that it might with reasonable certainty have been expected to saw as much as that during a
Order affirmed.