Smith v. Munch
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Separate appeals by defendants from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., denying motions for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The complaint stated three causes of action against the defendants, one for false imprisonment and two for malicious prosecution, viz. for assault and battery, and for disorderly conduct. There being no evidence to connect either of the defendants with the prosecution of plaintiff for assault and battery, that cause of action was properly dismissed by the court, and hence need not be considered.
The record discloses the following facts: The defendant Munch was the superintendent of the shops and yard of the Bohn Manufacturing Company, his duties being to look after the workmen and the work,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Munns v. De NemoursU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1811
- Burton v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Moore v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Gilbertson v. FullerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
3Cited by35 opinions
- Kolka v. JonesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
- Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Hess v. Oregon Baking Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1897
- Markley v. SnowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Barrett v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.