Behrendt v. Rassmussen, 234 Minn. 97 (1951)

Citation: Behrendt v. Rassmussen, 234 Minn. 97 (1951)
Parent Document: Behrendt v. Rassmussen, 234 Minn. 97 (1951)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 1951-04-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2038236/behrendt-v-rassmussen/ ↗

Full Text

1,032 chars

This brings us to a consideration of the question whether plaintiffs’ complaint and the evidence adduced is sufficient to support any common-law remedy such as abuse of process, malicious prosecution, or fraud and deceit. The evidence supports the allegations of the complaint, and that only. If the evidence supports no common-law remedy which may have been litigated by consent, we see no basis for recovery by plaintiffs. The complaint does not allege, and the evidence fails to support, a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The judgment in the unlawful detainer action was unfavorable to these plaintiffs. One of the necessary elements for recovery in a malicious prosecution action is that the action terminated in favor of plaintiff. Here it did not terminate in favor of plaintiffs. Hence no recovery may be had on that basis. Pixley v. Reed, 26 Minn. 80, 1 N. W. 800; Virtue v. Creamery Pkg. Mfg. Co. 123 Minn. 17, 142 N. W. 930, 1136, L. R. A. 1915B, 1179; Martin v. Cedar Lake Ice Co. 145 Minn. 452, 177 N. W. 631.

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text