Shea v. Cloquet Lumber Company
| Decision Date | 17 June 1904 |
| Docket Number | 13,791 - (31) |
| Citation | 100 N.W. 111,92 Minn. 348 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. SHEA v. CLOQUET LUMBER COMPANY and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $25,215 for malicious prosecution. The case was tried before Ensign J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $4,000. From an order denying a motion for a new trial provided plaintiff should consent to a reduction of the verdict to $3,825, defendants appealed. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Malicious Prosecution.
That a criminal prosecution was instituted upon the advice of counsel, given after a full and fair statement by the prosecutor of all the facts relating thereto, and honestly and in good faith acted and relied upon by the prosecutor, is a complete defense to an action for malicious prosecution. It is unnecessary for the prosecutor to show, in addition to the advice, and his reliance thereon in good faith, that the advice was honestly given by the attorney.
Advice of Counsel.
Such advice would not be a defense, however, if the prosecutor knew or had reason to believe that the advice was not given in good faith.
Wm. B Phelps, for appellants.
A. E. McManus and W. F. Bailey, for respondent.
Action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, in which plaintiff had a verdict for $4,000, and defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
The facts are as follows: In the survey of the public land in township 57, range 17, county of St. Louis, the surveyors attempted to run a meander line around a certain lake; but the line so run was at such a distance from the lake that this court held in Security L. & Exp. Co. v. Burns, 87 Minn. 97, 91 N.W. 304, that the survey was a fraud, and that the owners of lots abutting on the meander line so run did not, according to the general rule in such cases, own the land between the meander line and the lake shore. A map showing the situation will be found in 87 Minn. 100, 91 N.W. 305.
Plaintiff in this action settled upon a tract of land between the meander line and the lake, and claimed to be entitled to the same under the homestead laws. Defendant Cloquet Lumber Company acquired title to one of the government subdivisions adjoining the meander line, and claimed that its title extended to the lake shore, and that the land so settled upon by plaintiff was a part of the subdivision it so owned. The question of its ownership arose in the United States Circuit Court in the case of Kirwan v. Murphy, 83 F. 275, 28 C.C.A. 348, where it was held that the meander line run by the government surveyors was not a boundary line, and that the title of owners of abutting property extended to the lake shore. The controversy was carried from that court to the Court of Appeals, where the same conclusion was reached. The claims of the respective parties were made in good faith. Plaintiff believed in good faith that he was entitled at least to the possession of the land, that he would ultimately acquire it from the government, and that he was the owner of the timber growing thereon. Defendants also believed in good faith -- basing their belief on the decisions of the United States courts referred to -- that the land belonged to the lumber company, and that the company had the right to cut and remove the timber. Defendants were mistaken. The Supreme Court of the United States, subsequent to the time of the transactions here involved. on a review of the decision of this court in the Burns case supra, determined the question adversely to the company, and held that the land between the meander line and the lake was public land, and not a part of the land abutting upon the meander line.
The land settled upon and claimed by plaintiff contained a large body of timber, and defendants were anxious to cut and remove the same. Plaintiff insisted, notwithstanding the decisions of the United States courts, that he was entitled to the land, and the owner of the timber, and he resisted all efforts of the lumber company to cut or remove it. He caused the arrest of defendants' foreman on several occasions, and protested in various ways that the lumber company had no right to interfere with his possession of the land. After considerable difficulty between the parties in reference to their respective rights, defendants caused the arrest of plaintiff upon the charge that he had threatened to shoot and kill defendants' employees who had been sent to the land to cut and remove the timber; the purpose of the arrest being to have plaintiff placed under bonds to keep the peace. He was arrested, taken to Duluth, and, upon hearing before the municipal court of that city, discharged; no case having been made against him.
Thereupon plaintiff brought this action for damages, alleging that his arrest and prosecution were without probable cause and malicious. The defense interposed was (1) that there was probable cause to believe that plaintiff had made threats to kill defendants' employees if they continued in their efforts to cut and remove the timber from the land; and (2) that they submitted the matter to an attorney residing at Duluth, disclosed to him all the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial