Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kompass v. Light

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1899Published

Error to Berrien; Coolidge, J. Case by Rudolph E. Kompass and Matthew Stoll, co-partners as Kompass & Stoll, against William Light, for malicious prosecution of a writ of attachment. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error.

1ConcurrenceGrant, C. J.

I concur in the conclusion reached by my Brother Long. I am, however, of the opinion that there was no question of fact for the determination of the jury, except the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs. Neither the defendant nor his attorney had any facts before them sufficient to justify either in making an affidavit that he had good reason to believe, and did believe, that the plaintiffs had assigned, disposed of, and concealed their property with intent to defraud their creditors. The debts secured by the mortgages given by plaintiffs were bona fide, and neither defendant nor his…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cottrell v. HathewayMichigan Supreme Court · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API