*1 .557 agree- denial of an All actions after fire were bargain. could after the fire conduct of defendant purchase. ment to recognize plaintiff a refusal to grace urged with better a vendee. ground a new trial based his motion for

Defendant also evi- alleged newly This discovered evidence. newly discovered nature It is more well classified as such. dence cannot be grant- beyond that, But testimony. impeaching cumulative and judicial within sound largely ground trial on ing new will cursory examination court, very discretion no of such discretion there was abuse readily reveal that have been examined assignments error instant case. Other found merit. without is affirmed. STREET RAILWAY HERMAN v. MINNEAPOLIS

ANNA AND ANOTHER. APPELLANT.1 BAKERY, INC., EGEKVIST 1935. 1 Reported in 259 N. W. 794. *2 Sweet, L. MacPhail and &

Robert Johnson for Sands, appellant. Williams, Thomson & for respondent.

Loring, Justice. on

This case comes here an appeal by the defendant from bakery an order its blended motion for a or new after a verdict it. against brought

The action was recover to for personal injuries received a plaintiff passenger while the was on of the of Minne one cars the Railway apolis Street Company. The car was in traveling a north westerly direction on Fourth street southeast approaching Central avenue in Minneapolis. At that intersection there a stop-and- was go semaphore in the middle of the street. midway About of the block next the bakery’s avenue truck, traveling same direction as the car, passed street it way on its to Central avenue, where at that time semaphore the “go” indicated for traffic coming from direction of Fourth the street southeast. There was an automobile on parked right-hand the side Fourth street near the The truck, course, curb. Swung to the left of this car and thus did not room leave for enough the street car At pass it. semaphore that the moment turned from “go” “stop” and the in stopped obedience to the signal. The was then feet about 20 to the rear of the truck, and the brought motorman car to a sudden stop about feet five the rear The then plaintiff standing the truck. was in preparing the aisle the car at Central and the sudden stopping leave of the violently against threw her one of the seats. For the brought this action. acquitted received she injury jury so any railway company and found a verdict as the owner of truck. The controlling against this is whether appeal raised there was question negli-

559 which was driver of the on gence is bakery, injuries. of the plaintiff’s Crichton, v. Turnbloom largely upon relies here, appellant the sole collision a rear-end 570, where there was N. W. 189 Minn. which turned semaphore approaching between two automobiles that a to it. was there held up It coming “stop” statutory to give does not need semaphore for a stopping driver to such applicable stopping; for that statute not signal In that case may necessarily be sudden. situation. Such a invoked element which justices, dissent two but the there was a in this case at bar for case is not present the dissent that view semaphore plain it is conceded that well advised change. that he He was as motorman and saw had no driver of the truck necessity warned superior yellow light to the street. He saw it burned approaching change signal an estimated before overestimate) (obviously for of a an three-quarters minute yellow changed “go” to-“stop.” When semaphore *3 40 feet line on light building came on he was about they as as approach Central avenue. Under the conditions he of' ed it was for him in the exercise necessary ready stop to be to make a at time and to make ordinary care it in a manner as not to do violence His passengers. such speed passed by own car as it was estimate hour. at a rate per Going speed truck was ten miles of unnecessary certainly seem to a violent stop, would be make the driver of such as could not antici vehicle anyone on the car any injury to reason the neces pate outlined. sity making under the conditions He as had which right part lay to that the street much the tracks as company car did the street car itself. the street He had a managed that street cars would be with right assume reference conditions of traffic and that if prevailing be not quickly a smooth as a truck they to make equipped would fail managed accordingly. any proof We to see be plaintiff’s injury. on his The order the trial court judgment notwithstanding the verdict reversed and the with remanded directions to enter favor bakery. of the defendant Application Reargument.

On For 29, On March following was filed: opinion Per Curiam.

On motion for rehearing, respondent exception takes state- street, ment in the opinion car passed “midway of block.” writing In opinion we were under impression from the oral argument was a block. short There is some tending evidence to show that but 10 feet from Central avenue when passed the truck it. This does not change our conclusion. The driver, the exercise ordinary had a care, expect as well other vehicles to driven be with regard to other traffic and in the ex- pectation that the semaphore might change. There was abundant warning visible to the motorman that change.' it was about to Other traffic including street cars must driven in the expecta- tion that, response to semaphores, cars may stop. ahead denied.

Rehearing GEORGE FALCONER v. CENTRAL LUMBER AND

ANOTHER.1 *4 1 Reported N. W. 62.