Greenman v. Smith
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1894, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a complaint for assault and battery, it is not necessary, as defendant appears to contend, to allege, in so many words, that the acts complained of were committed “ with force,” or “ with force and arms.”
If facts are stated, showing “an actual infliction of violence on the person,” this is sufficient; for such facts constitute a battery, which includes an assault. 2 Greenl. Ev. § 84.
Defendant’s remaining objection to the complaint is equally untenable. The allegation immediately following the statement of the acts of violence complained of, that “ thereby said plaintiff was greatly wounded and bruised,” &c., is a sufficient averment that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the acts of ’defendant.
Damages being claimed in this case in the sum one thousand dollars, this was not an action within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. Gen. Stat. chap. 65, § 5, subdiv. 2. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to his costs and disbursements, notwithstanding he recovered only fifty dollars as damages. Gen. Stat. chap. 67, § 2; Laws 1868, chap. 89; Turner vs. Holleran, 8 Minn, 451.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.