Todd v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Todd v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.

35 N.W. 5, 37 Minn. 358, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 131

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 12, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 35 N.W. 5 (Todd v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.) 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

Todd v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co., 35 N.W. 5, 37 Minn. 358, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 131 (Mich. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

This case is controlled by that, of Lee v. Minn. & St. Louis Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 225, (25 N. W. Rep. 399.) The uncertainty or indefiniteness complained of is not as to what the complaint alleges, but as to what particular evidence the plaintiffs may produce to support it. The allegations as to the acts of the defendant railway constituting plaintiffs’ cause of action are not claimed to be either uncertain or indefinite, but what defendant asks is that the plaintiffs be required to plead the'names of the particular officers or agents, claimed to have done or committed these acts, so that it may be advised in advance what particular witnesses it will probably need to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs. To require this would be unprecedented, and subversive of the most familiar and well-established rules of pleading. '

Order affirmed.

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

Mitchell, J.

This case is controlled by that, of Lee v. Minn. & St. Louis Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 225, (25 N. W. Rep. 399.) The uncertainty or indefiniteness complained of is not as to what the complaint alleges, but as to what particular evidence the plaintiffs may produce to support it. The allegations as to the acts of the defendant railway constituting plaintiffs’ cause of action are not claimed to be either uncertain or indefinite, but what defendant asks is that the plaintiffs be required to plead the'names of the particular officers or agents, claimed to have done or committed these acts, so that it may be advised in advance what particular witnesses it will probably need to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs. To require this would be unprecedented, and subversive of the most familiar and well-established rules of pleading. '

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.W. 5, 37 Minn. 358, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/todd-v-minneapolis-st-louis-railway-co-minn-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack