Legal Opinion

O'Dell v. Hatfield

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1903Published

Action for malicious prosecution. Motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtForbes, J.

The action is for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff was arrested upon an information, under a criminal warrant, for tearing down and destroying a fence enclosing the defendant’s premises along a public highway. The questions to be examined are: First, Are the information and the warrant upon which the arrest was made sufficient in form? Second, Was there reasonable and probable cause for the institution of the criminal proceeding? I think the warrant and information are sufficient. People v. Upton, 29 N. Y. St. Repr. 777, and cases there cited; s. c., 55 Hun, 612; People ex rel. Allen v.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wright v. . Bank of the MetropolisNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  2. Fagnan v. . KnoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. Holmes v. SeelyNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  4. Anderson v. . HowNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  5. People Ex Rel. Allen v. . HaganNew York Court of Appeals · 1902

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API