Minnesota Supreme Court, 1891

Keigher v. Dowlan

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 28, 1891 · Mitchell

47 Minn. 574; 50 N.W. 823; 1891 Minn. LEXIS 569 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

G. D. á-Thos. D. O’Brien, for appellants., Munn, Boyesen á Thygesen, for respondents.

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 1934, 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

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Schmidt v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (Minn. 1934)
Sexton v. Steele (Minn. 1895)
Ermentrout v. American Fire Insurance (Minn. 1895)
Bunce v. Pratt (Minn. 1893)
Schmidt v. Agricultural Insurance (Minn. 1934)

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

Mitchell, J.

The point raised in this case is fully covered by ■Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 266, to the effect that whenever two or more ■persons are sued as joint defendants, and on the trial the plaintiff fails to prove a joint cause of action against all, but proves a •cause of action against one or more of the defendants, judgment may ,be rendered against him or them against whom- the cause of action *575is proved. Miles v. Wann, 27 Minn. 56, (6 N. W. Rep. 417.) Here the plaintiff sued the three defendants, alleging that they were partners. The proof was that the contract declared on was made by two of the defendants, but was not within the scope of the partnership, and hence no cause of action was proved against the third defendant. It can make no difference whether the failure to prove the cause of action against one of the defendants results from failure to prove, as in Miles v. Wann, supra, that he wás a partner, or, as in the present case, from the fact that the subject of the contract was not within the scope of the partnership business. The appellants’ contention proceeds upon the erroneous idea that the action was not against the individuals composing the firm, but against the firm, as a sort of entity.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.