Brand v. Hinchman
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Jennison, J.) Case for malicious prosecution of an attachment suit. •Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
Plaintiffs sued defendants for a malicious prosecution of an attachment suit, and recovered verdict and judgment for $625, in the circuit court for the county of Wayne.
On the fourth day of August, 1885, John M. Hinchman, one of the defendants, and in their behalf, made affidavit and obtained a writ of attachment in the superior court for the city of Detroit against the plaintiffs. The affidavit alleged that the plaintiffs were indebted to the Hinchmans in the sum of $473.11 over and above all legal set-offs, and that the same was due upon express contract; also, that the said plaintiffs, as…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Wall v. ToomeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1884
- Eastin v. Bank of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Marbourg v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Wetmore v. MellingerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Closson v. StaplesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Friedman v. DozorcMichigan Supreme Court · 1981
- R.J.R. Services, Inc., Individually, and D/B/A Ron Russell and Associates, and Ronald J. Russell v. Aetna Casualty and Surety CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Kolka v. JonesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
- Bickel v. MacKieDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1978
- Antcliff v. JuneMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.