Hayden v. Keith
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for Mille Lacs county, to recover damages occasioned by the allowance and service of a writ of injunction in a former action brought by defendants against plaintiffs, [Keith v. Hayclen, 26 Minn. 212.) On the trial, before Collins, J., and a jury, when the plaintiffs rested their case, the court dismissed the action, upon the ground that there was no evidence tending to show that the application for the writ of injunction…
Read the full summary
Plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for Mille Lacs county, to recover damages occasioned by the allowance and service of a writ of injunction in a former action brought by defendants against plaintiffs, [Keith v. Hayclen, 26 Minn. 212.) On the trial, before Collins, J., and a jury, when the plaintiffs rested their case, the court dismissed the action, upon the ground that there was no evidence tending to show that the application for the writ of injunction was made maliciously or without probable cause. Plaintiffs appeal from an order refusing a new trial. The action is not…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The district court allowed an injunction to issue .at the suit of defendants against these plaintiffs, and a bond approved by the court was duly filed as security for such damages as they might sustain by reason of the writ, if the court should finally *278decide that the parties applying therefor were not entitled thereto. Judgment having been duly recovered and entered in favor of these plaintiffs, whereby it appeared that the defendants were not entitled to the writ, the plaintiffs bring this action to recover the actual damages by them sustained by reason of such injunction. It is not,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lawton v. . GreenNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Methodist Churches of New York v. . BarkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Cayuga Bridge Co. v. MageeNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Wilde v. Alfred & Louis JoelThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Loveland v. BurnhamNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Asevado v. OrrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Harris v. SchlinkeTexas Supreme Court · 1901
- Coates v. CaldwellTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- H. P. Rieger & Co. v. KnightCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1916
- Steller v. ThomasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.