Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite West v. Hennessey, 59 N.W. 984.

42 citing documents.

McMenomy v. Ryden 148 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1967
McMenomy v. Ryden 148 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1967
West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank, 213 Minn. 304 , 6 N. W. (2d) 454 .
H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc. v. City of Duluth 31 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1948
H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc. v. City of Duluth 31 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1948
See, West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Swanson v. G. N. Ry.
Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank 6 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1942
Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank 6 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1942
West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Olson v. Shephard, 172 Minn. 290 , , supra; Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316 , 47 S. Ct. 600 , *310 71 L. ed. 1069.
State v. Tupa 260 N.W. 875 Minn. 1935
State v. Tupa 260 N.W. 875 Minn. 1935
McMillan v. Cheeney, 30 Minn. 519 , ; West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , .
Mowry v. Thompson 250 N.W. 52 Minn. 1933
Mowry v. Thompson 250 N.W. 52 Minn. 1933
West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Gustafson v. Gustafson, 178 Minn. 1 , , and cases cited.
Ross v. Amiret Farmers Elevator Co. 226 N.W. 417 Minn. 1929
Ross v. Amiret Farmers Elevator Co. 226 N.W. 417 Minn. 1929
In West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133, 136 , , the court said: “The judgment in favor of defendants in the former action merely determined that the facts were not as alleged in the complaint.
Olson v. Shephard 215 N.W. 211 Minn. 1927
Olson v. Shephard 215 N.W. 211 Minn. 1927
In West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133, 136 , , it was said that “The best and most accurate test as to whether a former judgment is a bar is to inquire whether,the same evidence will sustain both the former and the present action.
Stothard v. Shanley 207 N.W. 198 Minn. 1926
Stothard v. Shanley 207 N.W. 198 Minn. 1926
Marshall v. Gilman, 52 Minn. 88 , ; West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Rossman v. Tilleny, 80 Minn. 160 , , 81 Am.
Katzenmeier v. Doeren 185 N.W. 938 Minn. 1921
Katzenmeier v. Doeren 185 N.W. 938 Minn. 1921
West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Woodman v. Blue Grass Land Co. 98 Minn. 87 , ; State v. District Court of Wilkin County, 136 Minn. 151 , , 13 A.L.R.
Moe v. Shaffer 184 N.W. 785 Minn. 1921
Moe v. Shaffer 184 N.W. 785 Minn. 1921
West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , .
Leonard v. Schall 157 N.W. 723 Minn. 1916
Leonard v. Schall 157 N.W. 723 Minn. 1916
See Marshall v. Gilman, 52 Minn. 88 , ; West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Village of Wayzata v. Great Northern Ry.
Ferrier v. McCabe 152 N.W. 734 Minn. 1915
Ferrier v. McCabe 152 N.W. 734 Minn. 1915
McMillan v. Cheeney, 30 Minn. 519 , ; West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , .
McKnight v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 149 N.W. 131 Minn. 1914
McKnight v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 149 N.W. 131 Minn. 1914
In West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , , the court held that the cause of action in the first suit was not the same as in the second suit, although both arose out of the same transaction.
Sheets v. Ramer 145 N.W. 787 Minn. 1914
Sheets v. Ramer 145 N.W. 787 Minn. 1914
West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Swank v. St.
Liimatainen v. St. Louis River Dam & Improvement Co. 137 N.W. 1099 Minn. 1912
Liimatainen v. St. Louis River Dam & Improvement Co. 137 N.W. 1099 Minn. 1912
This alone, we think, demonstrates that the cause of action alleged in the two com- j plaints is identical, (and, further, satisfies the test laid down in West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , , and relied upon by the plaintiff; the observations there made on page 137 being confined to cases involving different causes of action.
Tew v. Webster 136 N.W. 1098 Minn. 1912
Tew v. Webster 136 N.W. 1098 Minn. 1912
Applying the rule said in West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , , to be “the best and most accurate test as to whether a former judgment is a bar,” it is clear, we think, that the same evidence would sustain or support both the former and the present action.
Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co. 111 N.W. 948 Minn. 1907
Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co. 111 N.W. 948 Minn. 1907
In West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , , it was said: “The judgment in favor of defendants in the former action merely detei-mined that the facts were not as alleged in the complaint.
Kaaterud v. Gilbertson 104 N.W. 763 Minn. 1905
Kaaterud v. Gilbertson 104 N.W. 763 Minn. 1905
West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , ; Village of Wayzata v. Great Northern Ry.
Rossman v. Tilleny 83 N.W. 42 Minn. 1900
Rossman v. Tilleny 83 N.W. 42 Minn. 1900
*162 “The best and most accurate test as to whether a former judgment is a bar is to inquire whether the same evidence will sustain both the former and the present action.” West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133, 136 , .
Swanson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 75 N.W. 1033 Minn. 1898
Swanson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 75 N.W. 1033 Minn. 1898
And in West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , , this court said, at page 137: “It is not an uncommon occurrence that a party, under a mistake of law or fact, attempts to recover by alleging a certain state of facts as his cause of action, and is defeated; but this is no bar to his recovery on another statement of facts, constituting a different cau
Village of Wayzata v. Great Northern Railway Co. 69 N.W. 1073 Minn. 1897
Village of Wayzata v. Great Northern Railway Co. 69 N.W. 1073 Minn. 1897
West v. Hennessey, 58 Minn. 133 , .