Backus v. Richardson
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
THIS cause came before the court, on a writ of error r from the supreme court. It was an action of slander. The declaration containec¡ four counts.
Read the full summary
THIS cause came before the court, on a writ of error r from the supreme court. It was an action of slander. The declaration containec¡ four counts. The first count, after stating that the sa^ David Richardson (the present defendant in error) was a citizen of good character, credit, &c. and exer- ° _ _ cised the trade of a merchant, buying and selling to di-r i o vers customers, &c. who purchased, &c. yet the said Rufus, (the plaintiff in error,) well knowing, &c. but contriving, &c. on the 1st August, 1804, at Whitehall, *n t^ie county of Washington, &c. in a certain discourse then and there…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This cause is presented here, on a writ of error from the supreme court.
The errors relied on are, 1st. That a nolle prosequi, as to the two first counts, entered after the return of a writ of inquiry, on which damages were assessed on the third and fourth counts only, was erroneously entered, not being with leave of the court, and after demurrer ; and,
2dly, That the words in the first and second counts are not actionable.
Independent of technical terms, the plaintiff alleges that the words, in the first and second counts, are not actionable. The defendant does not deny it, and…
2Cited by9 opinions
- President of the Bank of the United States v. MossSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
- Wilson v. MarksSupreme Court of Florida · 1881
- Roberts v. BreckonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Burke v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Ware v. ClowneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.