Huidekoper v. Cotton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Warren county. This was an action for a malicious prosecution by James Cotton against H. I. Huidekoper. Cotton had been indicted for an assault and battery with intent to kill Huidekoper, and the grand jury returned the bill “ ignoramus,” and this suit was instituted.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Warren county. This was an action for a malicious prosecution by James Cotton against H. I. Huidekoper. Cotton had been indicted for an assault and battery with intent to kill Huidekoper, and the grand jury returned the bill “ ignoramus,” and this suit was instituted. The cause had been once tried before, and was removed to the supreme court by writ of error: while there pending, the plaintiff below entered a rule to take depositions, to be read in the event that the judgment should be reversed and a venire de novo awarded. The depositions were objected to on this…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Huston, J.
This was an action for a malicious prosecution. An *57indictment had been presented against Cotton, on a charge of shooting at Huidekoper with a rifle with intent to kill him, and wounding his horse. The grand jury returned the bill “ignoramus,” and Cotton instituted this suit. It was removed to this court once before, and a venire de novo awarded. During the time that the record was in this court, the plaintiff below entered in the common pleas a rule to take depositions, &c., to be used if the cause should be tried again on a venire, and took…
2Cited by28 opinions
- United States v. BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- State v. FassetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1844
- Jenkins v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1895
- State v. HamlinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
- Commonwealth v. KirkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.