Eickhoff v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,220 - (51) |
| Parties | WILLIAM EICKHOFF v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Polk county to recover $2,000 for the alleged malicious prosecution of a civil action. The cause was tried before Ives, J., and a jury, and a verdict for $1,500 was returned in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial, it appealed. Reversed.
Action against Foreign Corporation -- Venue.
A foreign insurance corporation, although it has complied with all the provisions and conditions of the statute as to its right to do business in this state, may be sued in any county in the state which the plaintiff designates in his complaint.
Malicious Civil Prosecution -- Want of Probable Cause -- Degree of Proof Required.
While the party injured may maintain an action for damages for the prosecution of a civil action without probable cause and maliciously, although there was no interference with his person or property, yet the want of probable cause must be very palpable. A greater latitude in the doctrine of reasonable cause must be exercised in such cases than would be permissible in an action for maliciously prosecuting a criminal case.
Malicious Civil Prosecution -- Malice -- Want of Probable Cause.
Malice may be inferred from proof of want of probable cause for prosecuting the action, but want of probable cause cannot be inferred from proof of malice alone.
Malicious Civil Prosecution -- Review on Appeal.
The question of probable cause will be reviewed on appeal as a legal conclusion, rather than as a mere question of fact.
Malicious Civil Prosecution -- Verdict not Sustained by Evidence.
Held that the evidence in this case does not sustain the verdict.
Van Fossen & Frost, for appellant.
The proper venue was Hennepin county, where defendant had its place of business, and not Polk county. Defendant, a foreign corporation, having complied with all the requirements of the statutes of Minnesota, became entitled to all the rights of a domestic corporation, including the right to be sued only in the county where it has its office, agent or place of business. See Easley v. New Zealand (Idaho) 38 P 405. For the purpose of reviewing the action of the trial court in determining the question of probable cause, this court will treat it as a question of law, and will examine the evidence bearing upon it as freely as if the question were before it originally. Burton v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 189; Moore v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 37 Minn. 147; Boyd v. Mendenhall, 53 Minn. 274. The want of probable cause is to be determined, not upon the actual state of the case, but upon the reasonable belief of the party that instituted the proceedings complained of. Smith v. Much, 65 Minn. ikl; Lytton v. Baird, 95 Ind. 349; 2 Sutherland, Dam. § 707; Newell, Mal. Pros. 267; Good v. French, 115 Mass. 201; Woodworth v. Mills, 61 Wis. 44; Walker v. Camp, 63 Iowa 627; Smith v. Austin, 49 Mich. 286. There may be probable cause without actual cause. Newell, Mal. Pros. 268; Pomeroy v. Villavossa, 31 Ill.App. 590; Collins v. Hayte, 50 Ill. 353; Smith v. Munch, supra. On the question of malice, see Bartlett v. Hawley, 38 Minn. 308.
H. Steenerson, for respondent.
G.S. 1894, § 5185, expressly provides that in actions against foreign corporations the trial shall take place in any county which plaintiff shall designate in his complaint. See Olson v. Osborne, 30 Minn. 444. It is everywhere held that malice may be inferred from want of probable cause. This rule is applicable to the malicious prosecution of civil actions. Kolka v. Jones, 6 N.D. 461. See also Severns v. Brainard, 61 Minn. 265.
This is an action for malicious prosecution of a civil action against the plaintiff by the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,500, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
1. The action was commenced in the district court of Polk county, but was removed to Hennepin county on demand and affidavit on behalf of the defendant that the only county in the state wherein it had an officer or agent or place of business was the latter county. Thereupon the plaintiff made a motion that the action be returned to the district court of the county of Polk, on the ground that it had been improperly removed. The court made its order so remanding it. At the commencement of the trial herein the defendant objected to proceeding to trial in Polk county, and moved the court to remand the case to Hennepin county. The objection and motion were overruled. These rulings are assigned as error.
The defendant is a foreign insurance corporation, and before the commencement of this action had duly filed a power of attorney authorizing service of process to be made upon the insurance commissioner of the state as personal service upon it, and had received his official certificate authorizing it to do business as an insurance company within the state. Therefore the defendant claims that by virtue of the statute it is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a domestic corporation, which can be sued only in a county where it has an office, agent or place for the transaction of business.
The provisions of the statute relating to this question, so far as here material, are in legal effect the following: A foreign corporation may be sued in any county in the state which the plaintiff shall designate in his complaint. G.S. 1894, § 5185 (G.S. 1878, c. 66, § 49); Olson v. Osborne, 30 Minn. 444, 15 N.W. 876. When a foreign insurance corporation shall have complied with the conditions of the statute, the insurance commissioner may issue his certificate to such company, authorizing it to become, for the purpose of transacting its business, a domestic corporation within this state. G.S. 1894, § 3167 (Laws 1885, c. 183, § 3). All foreign corporations which have complied with the laws of the state are, unless otherwise provided by law, entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of domestic corporations. G.S. 1894, § 3425 (Laws 1885, c. 183, § 6).
These several provisions of the statute are not inconsistent, and section 5185 is not repealed, by implication or otherwise, by the other sections we have referred to, although the latter were enacted since the former. Section 3167 authorizes foreign corporations to become domestic corporations only for the purpose of transacting their business, and section 3425 confers upon them the rights and privileges of domestic corporations, except as otherwise provided by law. It was at the time this last section was enacted, and still is, otherwise provided by law with respect to the place of trial of actions against foreign corporations of the character of the defendant. We therefore hold that a foreign insurance corporation, although it has complied with all of the provisions and conditions of the statute as to its right to do business in this state, may be sued in any county in the state which the plaintiff designates in his complaint.
2. The conclusion we have reached in this case renders it unnecessary to consider any other of the assignments of error, except the one to the effect that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. It is settled by the decisions of this court that for the prosecution of a civil action maliciously and without probable cause the party injured may maintain an action for damages, although there was no interference with his person or property. McPherson v Runyon, 41 Minn. 524, 43 N.W. 392; O'Neill v. Johnson, 53 Minn. 439, 55 N.W. 601. However, the want of probable cause must be very palpable. A greater latitude in the doctrine of reasonable cause must be exercised in such cases than would be permissible in an action for maliciously prosecuting a criminal case. Before a party can justly be held liable for maliciously prosecuting a civil action, where there was no interference with the person or property of the defendant, want of probable cause must be very clearly proven. Bigelow, Torts, 78; Newell, Mal. Pros. 35. This rule is sustained by principles of justice and public policy. To compel a party who brings a civil action and fails to maintain it to pay the costs is, as a rule, all that a practical administration of justice requires, and is usually sufficient to make him cautious about...
To continue reading
Request your trial