Opinion · Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mitchell v. Davies
51 Minn. 168
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Minnesota
- Jurisdiction
- Minnesota
- Date
- 1892-10-27
- Topic
- general
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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Mitchell v. Davies. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 12 opinions
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
Order reversed.
(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 363.)