Todd v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
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 1926, 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
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Knight v. Industrial Trust Co. (Superior Court of Delaware 1937)
- Commander Milling Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. (8th Cir. 1934)
- Cull v. Brennan (Minn. 1926)
- Liston v. Nail (Okla. 1917)
- Johnson v. Great Northern Railway Co. (N.D. 1903)
- Swift & Co. v. Bleise (Neb. 1902)
- Rhodes v. Northern Traction Co. (Summit County Court of Common Pleas 1901)
- Bowers v. Schuler (Minn. 1893)
- Keys v. Fink (Neb. 1908)
- Commonwealth Co. v. Nunn (Colo. App. 1902)
- Commonwealth Co. v. Nunn (Colo. App. 1902)
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
This case is controlled by that, of Lee v. Minn. & St. Louis Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 225, (25 N. W. Rep. 399.) The uncertainty or indefiniteness complained of is not as to what the complaint alleges, but as to what particular evidence the plaintiffs may produce to support it. The allegations as to the acts of the defendant railway constituting plaintiffs’ cause of action are not claimed to be either uncertain or indefinite, but what defendant asks is that the plaintiffs be required to plead the'names of the particular officers or agents, claimed to have done or committed these acts, so that it may be advised in advance what particular witnesses it will probably need to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs. To require this would be unprecedented, and subversive of the most familiar and well-established rules of pleading. '
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.