TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Swensgaard v. Davis

John P. Swensgaard v. John P. Davis

Swensgaard v. Davis, 23 N.W. 543 (Minn. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 18, 1885
Judges
Dickinson
Citations
23 N.W. 54333 Minn. 3681885 Minn. LEXIS 79
Headnotes
Malicious Prosecution. — The general rule that an action for a malicious criminal prosecution cannot be maintained unless the prosecution has terminated in an acquittal of the accused, is not applicable where the prosecution has terminated under such circumstances that the accused had no opportunity to controvert the facts alleged against him, and to secure a determination thereon in his favor.
Summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Lyon county, Webber, J., presiding, granting a new trial. The case is stated in the opinion. cited Cooley on Torts, 186; 2 Addison on Torts, 742; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 452; Graves v. Dawson, 39 Am. Bep. 429; Thompson v.Lumley, 50 How. Pr. 105; Laird v. Taylor, 66 Barb. 139; Pratt v. Page, 18 Wis. 337; Morrow v. Wood, 35 Wis. 59; Winn v. Peckham, 42 Wis. 493.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dickinson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Dickinson, J. 1

This is an action to recover damages for a malicious criminal prosecution of the plaintiff before a justice of the peace upon complaint of this defendant. . The criminal proceeding was never brought to trial, the justice of the peace having failed to attend at the time set for trial. Subsequently, the complainant failing to appear and prosecute after notice to do so, the justice formally discharged the accused. Upon the trial of this action, the above facts appearing, the court nonsuited the plaintiff, upon motion of the. defendant, for the reason that the plaintiff had not been acquitted of the offence charged against him. Afterwards the court, deeming this ruling erroneous, granted a new trial, and the defendant appealed.

The general rule, making the right to maintain an action of this nature to depend upon the fact that the prosecution complained of has resulted in a determination in favór of the accused, is applicable only when the course of the prosecution has been such that the accused had the opportunity to controvert the facts alleged against him, and to secure a determination in his favor. Pixley v. Reed, 26 Minn. 80 ; Cardinal v. Smith, 109 Mass. 158 ; Buckland v. Green, 133 Mass. 421 ; Clark v. Cleveland, 6 Hill, 344 ; Fay v. O’Neill, 36 N. Y. 11 ; Apgar v. Woolston, 43 N. J. Law, 57; Stanton v. Hart, 27 Mich. 539 . In the case under consideration the prosecution was terminated without this plaintiff having had such an opportunity, and the nonsuit was erroneous.

Order affirmed.

Berry, J., was absent and took no part in this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1887: 11905: 11913: 11914: 11920: 11937: 11940: 12020: 118872026peak 1887 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hauser v. Bartow7 N.E.2d 268 (N.Y. 1937) · Dissent
  2. Linder v. Foster295 N.W. 299 (Minn. 1940)
  3. Rossiter v. Minnesota Bradner-Smith Paper Co.33 N.W. 855 (Minn. 1887)
  4. Martin v. Cedar Lake Ice Co.177 N.W. 631 (Minn. 1920)
  5. Schaefer v. Cremer104 N.W. 468 (S.D. 1905)
  6. Peake v. Milaca State Bank139 N.W. 813 (Minn. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Joy Laskar, PH.D. v. Phillip W. Hurd972 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020)
  2. Linder v. Foster295 N.W. 299 (Minn. 1940)
  3. Hauser v. Bartow7 N.E.2d 268 (N.Y. 1937) · Dissent
  4. Martin v. Cedar Lake Ice Co.177 N.W. 631 (Minn. 1920)
  5. Reit v. Meyer160 A.D. 752 (1914)
  6. Peake v. Milaca State Bank139 N.W. 813 (Minn. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Cardival v. Smith, 109 Mass. 158 (1872) 37
Stanton v. Hart, 27 Mich. 539 (1873) 22
Fay v. O'Neill, 36 N.Y. 11 (1867) 19
Pixley v. Reed, 1 N.W. 800 (Minn. 1879) 11
Buckland v. Green, 133 Mass. 421 (1882) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list