Legal Opinion

Hanimann v. Schellhorn

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 7, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. In May, 1923, the defendant made a criminal complaint against him, charging him with the crime of embezzlement in converting to his own use moneys that he had received as the agent of the defendant, with intent to defraud the latter.

The charge was made the subject of an investigation by the grand jury, and an indictment was found. After a good deal of delay, the prosecutor of the pleas, pursuant to the order of the court, entered a nolle prosequi, and thereafter the present suit was brought. At the close of the…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Shoemaker v. ShoemakerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  2. Little v. LittleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API