Legal Opinion

Garrett v. Mannheimer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 11, 1877PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., presiding, denying a motion for a new trial..

1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.

This is an action for the malicious prosecution-by defendants of a suit against the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered. One of the defendants, being upon the stand as a witness for the defence, was asked: “ Did you believe, at the time you instituted the suit complained of, that you had a valid and legal claim for that case against Mrs. Garrett?” The question was excluded, for ineompetency. This was error. Proof of actual malice being necessary to maintain an action for malicious prosecution, any evidence *194legitimately tending to disprove such malice is competent and admissible in defence…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McKown v. . HunterNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
  2. Berkey v. JuddSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Runo v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Rosvall v. ProvostSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  3. Olson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
  4. Allen v. Osco Drug, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  5. Schubkegel v. GordinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API