Minnesota Supreme Court, 1902

Jenkinson v. Koester

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 9, 1902 · Brown

86 Minn. 155; 90 N.W. 382; 1902 Minn. LEXIS 471 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

G. A. Wye, for appellant., William Bussell, 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 1931, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Karnofsky v. Wells-Dickey Co. (Minn. 1931)
Fitger v. Guthrie (Minn. 1903)
Pearson v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1903)

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

BROWN, J.

This was an action for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff had a verdict in the court below for the sum of $100, and appeals from an order of the trial court granting a new trial.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, as a discretionary order, under the now familiar rule, first announced in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434); it appearing that the motion for new trial was based upon the grounds, among others, that the verdict of the jury was not justified by the evidence, and it not appearing from the order of the trial court upon which ground the motion was granted. Langan v. Iverson, 78 Minn. 299, 80 N. W. 1051. It does, however, appear from the memorandum of the trial judge appended to his order granting a new trial that the same was not granted in the exercise of his discretion, but because, in his opin*156ion, the evidence was conclusive against plaintiff’s right of recovery. We are all agreed that the learned trial judge is in error in that conclusion, for the evidence appears to us quite sufficient to take the case to the jury, and to sustain a verdict for plaintiff. But a majority of the court (the writer dissenting) hold, 'following former decisions of the court, that the memorandum, not having been expressly so made, is no part of the order of the trial court (Kertson v. Great Northern Exp. Co., 72 Minn. 378, 75 N. W. 600; Myers v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 69 Minn. 476, 72 N. W. 694; Morrow v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 65 Minn. 382, 67 N. W. 1002), and cannot be taken into consideration in determining upon what ground the trial court granted a new trial.

The order appealed from is affirmed, but as the cause was set down for oral argument, in violation of the rules of this court, no statutory costs will be allowed respondent. Vaule v. Steenerson, 63 Minn. 110, 65 N. W. 257; Taylor v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 331, 83 N. W. 189.

Order affirmed.

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