Olson v. D. M. Osborne & Co.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1883 |
| Citation | 15 N.W. 876,30 Minn. 444 |
| Parties | Hans F. Olson v. D. M. Osborne & Co |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
This action was commenced in the district court for Freeborn county. Defendant, a corporation created and existing under the laws of New York, upon affidavits showing that for more than a year past it had had an office and general place of business in Hennepin county, and had no agent, agency or place of business in Freeborn county, moved for a change of venue to the former county. This motion having been denied by Farmer, J., the action proceeded to trial, and plaintiff had a verdict. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
Palmer & McAdam and Gordon E. Cole, for appellant.
Lovely & Morgan, for respondent.
Berry, J. Gen.
St 1866, c. 66, § 40, (corresponding to Gen. St 1878, c. 66, § 49,) was so amended by Laws 1877, c. 68, as to read, so far as here important as follows: "In all other cases, except when the state of Minnesota is plaintiff, the action shall be tried in the county in which the defendants, or any of them, shall reside at the commencement of the action; or, if none of the parties shall reside or be found in the state, or the defendant be a foreign corporation, the same may be tried in any county which the plaintiff shall designate in his complaint, subject, however, to the power of the court to change the place of trial, in the cases provided by law: * * * provided, that the place where any corporation existing under the laws of this state has its principal office and place of business, shall be held to be the place of the residence of such corporation, within the meaning of this act."
By Laws 1878, c. 38, the foregoing section was "amended by striking out" the proviso and "inserting in lieu thereof the following addition to said section: 'A corporation shall be deemed to reside in any county where it has an office, agent, or place of business, within the meaning of this section.'" Before the amendment of 1878, it is clear that, under the section amended, actions against a foreign corporation might be well brought in any county designated by the plaintiff in his complaint. The amendment does not, in our opinion, affect the privilege of designation thus accorded to a plaintiff. It is expressly and explicitly allowed in the act of 1877, and notwithstanding the amendment of 1878, it retains its place in the statute without the change of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eickhoff v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
...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 held that malice may be inferred from want of probable cause. This rule is applicable to the malicious prosecution of civil actio......
-
Claseman v. Feeney
... ... O. Snow, of Long Prairie, and Barron & Bradford, of Wadena, ... for respondent and J. B. Himsl ... JULIUS ... J. OLSON, Justice ... Order ... to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not ... issue directing a transfer of the files ... v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490, 47 S.Ct ... 678, 71 L.Ed. 1165.’ ... Consequently ... the court overruled Olson v. D. M. Osborne" & Co., 30 ... Minn. 444, 15 N.W. 876, and Eickhoff v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 74 Minn. 139, 76 N.W. 1030, which held ... otherwise ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State ex rel. Twin City & Southern Bus Co. v. District Court of Otter Tail County
... ... fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution, as held in ... Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490, 47 S.Ct ... 678, 71 L.Ed. 1165. Olson v. Osborne & Co. 30 Minn ... 444, 15 N.W. 876, and Eickhoff v. Fidelity & Casualty ... Co. 74 Minn. 139, 76 N.W. 1030, being in conflict with ... ...
- P. P. Mast & Co. v. Matthews