Handley v. Call
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The following is a copy of the case, on the exceptions and motion for new trial, because the verdict was against the evidence. “ This was an action on the case charging defendant with conspiring with one Joel How, Jr. a deputy sheriff, and procuring said How to make a false return of an attachment of certain real estate.
Read the full summary
The following is a copy of the case, on the exceptions and motion for new trial, because the verdict was against the evidence. “ This was an action on the case charging defendant with conspiring with one Joel How, Jr. a deputy sheriff, and procuring said How to make a false return of an attachment of certain real estate. The writ was dated July 5, 1845. “ Plaintiff called certain witnesses who testified as follows: — “ Joel How, Jr. I was deputy sheriff in March, 1841. Moses Call showed me a writ — I signed the returns he asked me to. I did not look at it — It was on the 6th of March — He…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, after a continuance for advisement, was drawn up by
Whitman C. J.
The exception to the admission of the
witness, Glidden, is not sustainable. This is a special action on the case for a conspiracy, between the defendant, and one Joel How, jr. to defraud the plaintiff. Nothing more is recoverable than the amount of the injury, which the plaintiff personally and individually has sustained. No one, unless by special agreement, could have a right to share'with him in any *47portion of the damages he may recover. If the suit were for a trespass done to a chattel owned by the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Boyden v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Malin v. RoseNew York Supreme Court · 1834