Legal Opinion

Bump v. Betts & Betts

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1840PublishedCited by 8 opinions

. This was an action on the case for a malicious prosecution tried at the Chenango circuit in August, 1838, before the Hon. Robert Monell, one of the circuit judges. Peter J. Betts, one of the defendants, as the agent of Peter Betts, the other defendant, sued out an attachment from a justice’s court against the plaintiff, on the allegation that the plaintiff was indebted to Peter Betts, and had departed the county of Chenango with the intent to defraud his credit, ors.

Read the full summary

. This was an action on the case for a malicious prosecution tried at the Chenango circuit in August, 1838, before the Hon. Robert Monell, one of the circuit judges. Peter J. Betts, one of the defendants, as the agent of Peter Betts, the other defendant, sued out an attachment from a justice’s court against the plaintiff, on the allegation that the plaintiff was indebted to Peter Betts, and had departed the county of Chenango with the intent to defraud his credit, ors. The attachment was levied upon various articles of property belonging to the plaintiff, a judgment was obtained for $32,88…

1Opinion of the CourtCowen, J.

By the Court, This was an action for maliciously suing out an attachment against the plaintiff on a paid judgment. The cause [ *86 ] Was properly left to thejury, *under the circumstances in proof, upon the question of probable cause. The judgment had been paid, and a receipt in full given by the defendant P. J. Betts, son and agent of the other defendant, Teter Betts; and I cannot help thinking with the jury, that the defendants perfectly well knew and recollected that fact, when the attachment was taken out. The process of the law was perverted to the purposes of injuring if not ruining the…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Buckley v. KnappSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
  2. Clements v. MaloneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
  3. Beck v. DowellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
  4. Heneky v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Sexson v. HooverIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891

3 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