Swensgaard v. Davis
| Citation | 33 Minn. 368 |
| Parties | JOHN P. SWENSGAARD <I>vs.</I> JOHN P. DAVIS. |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1885 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Forbes & Seward, for appellant.
C. W. Main and John Lind, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for a malicious criminal prosecution of the plaintiff before a justice of the peace upon complaint of this defendant. The criminal proceeding was never brought to trial, the justice of the peace having failed to attend at the time set for trial. Subsequently, the complainant failing to appear and prosecute after notice to do so, the justice formally discharged the accused. Upon the trial of this action, the above facts appearing, the court nonsuited the plaintiff, upon motion of the defendant, for the reason that the plaintiff had not been acquitted of the offence charged against him. Afterwards the court, deeming this ruling erroneous, granted a new trial, and the defendant appealed.
The general rule, making the right to maintain an action of this nature to depend upon the fact that the prosecution complained of has resulted in a determination in favor of the accused, is applicable only when the course of the prosecution has been such that the accused had the opportunity to controvert the facts alleged against him, and to secure a determination in his favor. Pixley v. Reed, 26 Minn. 80; Cardival v. Smith, 109 Mass. 158; Buckland v. Green, 133 Mass. 421; Clark v. Cleveland, 6 Hill, 344; Fay v. O'Neill, 36 N. Y. 11; Apgar v. Woolston, 43 N. J. Law, 57; Stanton v. Hart, 27 Mich. 539. In the case under consideration the prosecution was terminated without this plaintiff having had such an opportunity, and the nonsuit was erroneous.
Order affirmed.
1. Berry, J., was absent and took no part in this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laskar v. Hurd, No. 19-11719
...prevail without a favorable termination when the relevant proceedings against them were ex parte . See, e.g. , Swensgaard v. Davis , 33 Minn. 368, 23 N.W. 543, 543 (1885) ; see also Fortman v. Rottier , 8 Ohio St. 548, 552–53 (1858) (applying this rule in the context of a civil prosecution)......
-
Sullivan v. Garland
... ... 303; ... Cardival v. Smith, 109 Mass. 158, 12 Am. Rep. 582; ... Burkett v. Lanata, 15 La. Ann. 337; Driggs v ... Burton, 44 Vt. 124; Swensgaard v. David, 33 ... Minn. 368, 32 N.W. 543; Zebley v. Storrey, 117 Pa. St. 478, ... 12 A. 569 ... Even ... though this complaint should be demurrable as to the ... defendant corporation, the demurrer cannot be sustained as to ... both defendants. Makepeace v. Davis. 27 Ind. 352; ... Turner v. Bank, 26 Iowa 562; Webster v ... Tibbits, 19 Wis. 438; Railroad Co. v. Schuyler, ... 17 N.Y. 592; Goncelier v. Foret, ... ...
-
Martin v. Cedar Lake Ice Co.
...in the original suit or proceeding had or could have had no opportunity to have a termination thereof in his favor. Swensgaard v. Davis, 33 Minn. 368, 23 N. W. 543;Rossiter v. Minnesota Bradner-Smith Co., 37 Minn. 296, 33 N. W. 855. But this is not a case coming within any of the exceptions......
-
Peake v. Milaca State Bank
...be apprehended under the complaint made, and no return of the warrant issued is to be expected. Under the decision of Swensgaard v. Davis, 33 Minn. 368, 23 N. W. 543, we think the prosecution has terminated. See, also, Leever v. Hamill, 57 Ind. 423;Page v. Citizens' Banking Co., 111 Ga. 73,......