Smith v. George
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. On the 15th day of January, 1866, one Maurice J. Dooley was the owner of several tracts of land in the County of San Joaquin, aggregating about two thousand acres, and contracted to sell the same to, the plaintiff here for the sum of fourteen thousand dollars, payable, two thousand dollars down, and two thousand dollars yearly thereafter, on the 15th day of April, until the entire sum was paid.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. On the 15th day of January, 1866, one Maurice J. Dooley was the owner of several tracts of land in the County of San Joaquin, aggregating about two thousand acres, and contracted to sell the same to, the plaintiff here for the sum of fourteen thousand dollars, payable, two thousand dollars down, and two thousand dollars yearly thereafter, on the 15th day of April, until the entire sum was paid. The contract contained a clause that if Smith failed to make each payment as it became due, then Dooley should be…
1Opinion of the Court
An action cannot be maintained for the malicious institution of a civil suit in which no arrest, replevin, injunction, or attachment was issued. (Bay v. Law, 1 Peters C. C. It. 210; Potts v. Imlay, 1 South. E. 331; Samll v. Boherts, Salk. 15; Parlcer v. Langley, Sel. Cases, 161; and Allgor v. Stilwell, 1 Halst. N. J. 166.)
James C. Smith signed and swore to the petition filed in the Probate Court, under which last mentioned decree was made. This fully committed him to and bound him by the adjudication made in that proceeding. (Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall. 60, 64.) The decree of the Probate Court…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Putnam v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Masten v. DeyoNew York Supreme Court · 1829
3Cited by2 opinions
- Eastin v. Bank of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Andrus v. EstradaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995