Crosby v. Moriarty
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Le Sueur county to recover $1,525 for setting plaintiff’s buildings on fire. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before Tifft, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendants. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Action to recover damages for wilful destruction of property. Defendants prevailed and plaintiff appeals from the order denying a new trial.
Shortly after 9 o’clock on Sunday evening, September 14, 1913, plaintiff’s barn was discovered on fire, and was consumed together with six horses, a quantity of hay and farm implements. The indications were that the fire was set. • Gossip mistrusted defendants. They were indicted, tried and acquitted. Thereafter, one of them, Moriarty, brought an action for malicious prosecution against this plaintiff, her brother, William Almich, and her son. It failed.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pedigo v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1898
- McClurg v. BrentonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Hargrove v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- Parker v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Brott v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Terrell v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1968
- State v. StormMontana Supreme Court · 1952
- People v. NorwoodMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- People v. Centolella, New York County Courts1969
- State v. StreeperIdaho Supreme Court · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.