Severns v. Brainard

• Decision Date: 06 June 1895
• Docket Number: Nos. 9436 - (120).,s. 9436 - (120).
• Citation: 61 Minn. 265
• Parties: JENNIE SEVERNS v. HORACE J. BRAINARD.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 265

61 Minn. 265

JENNIE SEVERNS v. HORACE J. BRAINARD.¹

Nos. 9436 - (120).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 6, 1895.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., in favor of plaintiff for $1,090.45. Affirmed.

P. M. Quist, for appellant.

A. C. Hickman and John L. Townley, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

Action for malicious prosecution of a civil suit. The plaintiff in her complaint alleged that while she was a tenant of the defendant, and occupying one of his stores under a written lease, he wrongfully and maliciously, and without probable cause, on May 11, 1892, served notice on her to vacate the premises occupied by her as such tenant; and that he maliciously and without probable cause brought suit against her in the district court to recover the sum of $140 rent, when there was but $20 due him; and that such suit was brought to vex and harass plaintiff in her business as a retail storekeeper. The plaintiff further alleges that her business was destroyed by these alleged acts of the defendant.

It appears that after the defendant had served a notice, dated May 11, 1892, on the plaintiff to quit the premises within 30 days, he forthwith sued her for $140 rent, and the action was dismissed after the same had been brought on for trial in the district court upon issues duly made up between the parties, and judgment of dismissal of said action was duly made and rendered on October 25, 1892, in favor of this plaintiff, and against this defendant. The plaintiff herein admitted that there was $20 due for rent, and offered to pay it, but this defendant refused to accept it. After this action was commenced, this defendant brought another or second action against this plaintiff upon the same cause of action and for the same amount, viz. $140, for rent, and upon trial succeeded in recovering a verdict of $22.04, dated November 17, 1893; the plaintiff herein having offered to allow a judgment against her for the sum of $20, and interest thereon from April 1, 1892.

The plaintiff herein set forth, by her supplemental complaint, the complaint, answer, verdict, and judgment in the second suit; and, upon her offering them in evidence, they were objected to by this defendant, as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and because the defendant was only sued for having maliciously commenced the first suit. The court overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence, and the defendant duly excepted. This is really the only serious question in the case.

The mere fact that a person brings an action and does not recover the full amount of his claim, standing alone, does not necessarily prove that he commenced the action with a malicious motive. Frequently the rights of parties are doubtful, and it is often a matter of great difficulty for juries and courts to determine the exact amount due from one party to the other, or just what the rights of the respective litigants are. But it is a fundamental right of every man who feels himself aggrieved, or honestly believes that he has a just demand against another, to institute a suit and obtain a proper redress, if possible. But courts are not organized as vehicles for parties to vent their spite against others, nor to harass them without justifiable cause; and there should not be a malicious use or malicious abuse of...