Magistad v. Andrew Schoch Grocery 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 1954, 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
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Travelers Insurance Co. v. American Fidelity & Cas. Co. (D. Minn. 1958)
- Lunderberg v. Bierman (Minn. 1954)
- Danube Farmers Elevator Co. v. Marquardt (Minn. 1936)
- Turenne v. Smith (Minn. 1943)
- Allen v. Florida & Southern Dredging Co. (Minn. 1930)
- Taylor v. Taylor (Minn. 1929)
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
Action for an alleged balance of wages. The answer admitted the employment and alleged that at its termination the wages due were paid in cash in part and the balance in this manner: That plaintiff in the course of his employment drove one of defendant’s trucks so negligently that it collided with an automobile on a public street, breaking and damaging it in the sum of f28.50; that plaintiff fáiled to pay the damage so done, though payment was demanded; and that the owner of the automobile demanded payment of defendant, threatening suit if not made, by reason whereof defendant was compelled to and did pay said sum to said owner. Plaintiff demurred to the answer. The demurrer was sustained. Defendant appealed.
Defendant was liable to the owner of the automobile for the damage caused thereto by the negligence of plaintiff while acting in the course of his employment. It can make no difference whether the servant in the course of his work by his failure to do it properly destroys or injures his master’s property or destroys or injures that *454 of another who has recourse to the master, for in either event the master may hold the servant responsible. Defendant’s cause of action arises out of the contract of employment “pleaded in the complaint as the foundation of plaintiff’s claim.” G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9254(1). On the authority of Harlan v. St. P. M. & M. Ry. Co. 31 Minn. 427, 18 N. W. 147, the demurrer should be overruled.
The order is reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.