Minnesota Supreme Court, 1895

Buechner v. Columbia Shoe Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 19, 1895 · Start

60 Minn. 477; 62 N.W. 817; 1895 Minn. LEXIS 244 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Butts é Jacques and Benn Davis, for appellant., Thompson & Thompson, 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 1984, 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.

Cook v. Connolly (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
Johnson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad (Minn. 1907)
Picciano v. Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1907)
Hess v. Adamant Manufacturing Co. of America (Minn. 1896)
Lathrop v. Schutte (Minn. 1895)

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

START, C. J.

Action by the plaintiff, in his own name, to recover for injuries to his minor son by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant. Upon the trial the. district court dismissed the action, because the complaint did not state a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff, who appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial. “A father, or in case of his death or desertion of his family the mother, may maintain an action for the injury of the-child, and the guardian for the injury of the ward.” This has been a part of the statute law of Minnesota for more than 40 years. R. S. 1851, c. 70, § 34; G. S. 1866, c. 66, § 33 (G. S. 1894, § 5164). In Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 463, the point was made that the father, in an action in his own name, could not recover damages sustained by his minor child by reason of injuries caused by the wrong-. ful act of the defendant, but it was decided that he could by virtue-of this statute. This is decisive of the case at bar, for the allegations of the complaint bring this case within the terms of this stat*478ute as construed in Gardner v. Kellogg. It was not necessary to allege expressly that the action was brought under the statute, and for the benefit of the child, for the complaint alleges all the necessary facts to bring the case within the terms of the statute.

The order appealed from must be reversed, and a new trial granted. So ordered.

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