Ramgren v. Staples

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Ramgren v. Staples

94 N.W. 1135, 89 Minn. 228, 1903 Minn. LEXIS 493

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 8, 1903

DocketNos. 13,399—(55)

StatusPublished

This text of 94 N.W. 1135 (Ramgren v. Staples) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ramgren v. Staples, 94 N.W. 1135, 89 Minn. 228, 1903 Minn. LEXIS 493 (Mich. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In an action for malicious prosecution for procuring an indictment against the plaintiff here for receiving stolen property, defendant had a verdict; and it is insisted that a new trial should be had for the reason that the trial court erred in refusing to give specific instructions to the jury defining what constituted want of [229]*229probable cause and proof of malice on tbe part of tbe prosecutor (defendant here).

Tbe instructions of tbe court in its general charge were exceedingly full and clear, and accurately stated tbe law as previously laid down in several decisions of this court, wbicb included every material element of tbe subject involved, so far as properly embraced in tbe requests wbicb were refused. Tbe trial court did not, and was not bound to, adopt tbe requests denied, where tbe law therein contained bad been, as on this trial, accurately stated in its general instructions.

Tbe order appealed from is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In an action for malicious prosecution for procuring an indictment against the plaintiff here for receiving stolen property, defendant had a verdict; and it is insisted that a new trial should be had for the reason that the trial court erred in refusing to give specific instructions to the jury defining what constituted want of [229]*229probable cause and proof of malice on tbe part of tbe prosecutor (defendant here).

Tbe instructions of tbe court in its general charge were exceedingly full and clear, and accurately stated tbe law as previously laid down in several decisions of this court, wbicb included every material element of tbe subject involved, so far as properly embraced in tbe requests wbicb were refused. Tbe trial court did not, and was not bound to, adopt tbe requests denied, where tbe law therein contained bad been, as on this trial, accurately stated in its general instructions.

Tbe order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.W. 1135, 89 Minn. 228, 1903 Minn. LEXIS 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramgren-v-staples-minn-1903.