Minnesota Supreme Court, 1892

Mitchell v. Davies

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 27, 1892 · Gilfillan

51 Minn. 168; 53 N.W. 363; 1892 Minn. LEXIS 32 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Quinn & Putnam, and Brooks é Hendrix, for appellant., John Anderson, for respondent.

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 2000, 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.

Paidar v. Hughes (Minn. 2000)
Mannheimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety Co. (Minn. 1921)
Kolka v. Jones (N.D. 1897)
Hayward v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Minn. 1942)
Dreelan v. Karon (Minn. 1934)
Sticha v. Benzick (Minn. 1923)
Blazek v. McCartin (Minn. 1909)
Hlubek v. Pinske (Minn. 1901)
Hryciuk v. Robinson (Or. 1958)
Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
Johnson v. Howard (Minn. 1892)

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The evidence in this case, both as to want of probable cause and as to malice in prosecuting the suits against the plaintiff, justified a recovery. And in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff, in case of recovery, may recover as part of his damages the necessary cost of defending the malicious suit, including the proper fees of his attorney; but, as he cannot be held to have necessarily incurred for attorneys’ fees more than the services are worth, the value of them must be shown, before they can enter into the damages allowed.

In this case, although there was no evidence of their value, the court refused an instruction asked' by defendant, that plaintiff could not *170recover anything on account thereof, because the value was not shown. This was error, for which there must be a new trial.

Order reversed.

(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 363.)

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