Rosenthal v. Davenport
| Decision Date | 15 June 1888 |
| Citation | 38 N.W. 618,38 Minn. 543 |
| Parties | ROSENTHAL ET AL. v DAVENPORT. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
When papers, which are required to be filed in the office of the clerk of the district court, are presented to him for that purpose, it is his duty to file aud deposit them in a proper place for the keeping of such papers, so that they may be found upon reasonable examination. If, neglecting to do so, no misplaces such papers, he is chargeable with negligence.
A legal implication of negligence on the part of the person presenting papers for filing does not arise from the fact that papers relating to different matters are presented in one package without explanation, they being properly indorsed so as to show their character.
Case considered as not justifying a legal conclusion of negligence on the part of the person presenting papers to be filed for not having discovered that the officer had misplaced the same.
The creditor of an insolvent debtor having lost his share in the insolvent estate by reason of the clerk of the district court having misplaced the statutory release filed by the debtor, it was not necessary to a recovery against the clerk for his negligence that it be shown that the debtor had not again become solvent.
Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; LOCHREN, Judge.
Torrance & Fletcher, for appellants.
James O. Pierce and M. B. Koon, for respondent.
Upon the trial of this action the trial court directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Upon this appeal we are to consider whether the case ought not to have been submitted to the jury. The defendant is the clerk of the district court for Hennepin county. This action against him is based upon substantially the same facts as were presented in Re Robbins, 36 Minn. 66,30 N W Rep. 304.
The defendant is sought to be made liable for his neglect to file or deposit the plaintiffs' releases of their insolvent debtor, (Robbins,) in the proper place, with the other papers on file in his office in that proceeding, and for neglect to properly enter in the register of actions a minute of the filing of such release. The evidence in the case went to show that the plaintiffs' claim, as creditors of the insolvent debtor, was allowed; that they executed a release of the debtor, which was delivered to the defendant's official deputy at his office for filing, in a package with several other papers of a like kind, but relating to three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roerig v. Houghton
...not come within this rule, and is liable to one who sustains an injury by his malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance. Rosenthal v. Davenport, 38 Minn. 543, 38 N. W. 618;Selover v. Sheardown, 73 Minn. 393, 76 N. W. 50,72 Am. St. Rep. 627;Foster v. Malberg, 119 Minn. 168-171, 137 N. W. 816,......
-
Roerig v. Houghton
...not come within this rule and is liable to one who sustains an injury by his malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance. Rosenthal v. Davenport, 38 Minn. 543, 38 N.W. 618; Selover v. Sheardown, 73 Minn. 393, 76 N.W. 50, Am. St. 627; Foster v. Malberg, 119 Minn. 168, 171, 137 N.W. 816, 41 L.R.A......
-
Tholkes v. Decock
...to the performance of his ministerial duties, is liable to any person who may suffer in consequence of such neglect. Rosenthal v. Davenport, 38 Minn. 543, 38 N. W. 618;Selover v. Sheardown, 73 Minn. 393, 76 N. W. 50,72 Am. St. Rep. 627. And with this general rule of liability in mind it is ......
-
Tholkes v. Decock
...to the performance of his ministerial duties, is liable to any person who may suffer in consequence of such neglect. Rosenthal v. Davenport, 38 Minn. 543, 38 N. W. 618; Selover v. Sheardown, 73 Minn. 393, 76 N. W. 50, 72 Am. St. 627. And, with this general rule of liability in mind, it is a......