Leach v. Wilbur
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort to recover damages for bringing a malicious suit against the plaintiff upon a promissory note. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., the plaintiff testified that he employed one attorney and consulted several others in reference to the suit against him, and paid to one attorney $10, and expended other sums for carriage hire, and devoted several days to the preparation and trial of the case.
Read the full summary
Tort to recover damages for bringing a malicious suit against the plaintiff upon a promissory note. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., the plaintiff testified that he employed one attorney and consulted several others in reference to the suit against him, and paid to one attorney $10, and expended other sums for carriage hire, and devoted several days to the preparation and trial of the case. In order to show a want of probable cause for bringing the suit, he put in evidence a discharge in insolvency obtained by him, taking effect as of December 18th 1858. The defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtDewey, J.
1. The plaintiff having put into the case his discharge in insolvency, for the purpose of showing want of proba- ¡ ble cause in the suit instituted by the defendant, it seems quite clear that, any evidence tending to invalidate the discharge was relevant and proper.
2. The evidence of the witnesses as to statements made by the plaintiff was competent.
3. The instruction to the jury upon the subject of damages was sufficient, in the absence of any request for more specific directions.
4 No sufficient ground is shown for sustaining the exception to the ruling of the court overruling the motion of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Colt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1911
- State v. McReadySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Larsen v. Chicago Union Traction Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1907