Swensgaard v. Davis

23 N.W. 543, 33 Minn. 368, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 79
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 18, 1885·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

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.

Footnotes

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

Swensgaard v. Davis, 23 N.W. 543, 33 Minn. 368, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 79 (Mich. 1885).

23 N.W. 543 (Swensgaard v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Joy Laskar, PH.D. v. Phillip W. Hurd
972 F.3d 1278 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)
Linder v. Foster
295 N.W. 299 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1940)
Hauser v. Bartow
7 N.E.2d 268 (New York Court of Appeals, 1937)
Martin v. Cedar Lake Ice Co.
177 N.W. 631 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1920)
Reit v. Meyer
160 A.D. 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
Peake v. Milaca State Bank
139 N.W. 813 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1913)
Schaefer v. Cremer
104 N.W. 468 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)
Rossiter v. Minnesota Bradner-Smith Paper Co.
33 N.W. 855 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1887)