Brockleman v. Brandt

New York Court of Common Pleas

Brockleman v. Brandt

10 Abb. Pr. 141

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedFebruary 15, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 Abb. Pr. 141 (Brockleman v. Brandt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brockleman v. Brandt, 10 Abb. Pr. 141 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

Hilton, J.

—Although the matter in the complaint which the defendant asks to have stricken out as irrelevant and redundant, contains a statement of facts tending to show the motive of the defendant in the prosecution which is claimed to be malicious, and which might be given in evidence on the trial without being pleaded (Molony a. Dows, 15 How. Pr. R., 261); yet it may also be regarded as an averment of special injury, and as such may be necessary to enable the plaintiff to give proof in respect to it.

In either point of view, however, the plaintiff cannot be aggrieved by it, and the motion must therefore be denied.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hilton, J.

—Although the matter in the complaint which the defendant asks to have stricken out as irrelevant and redundant, contains a statement of facts tending to show the motive of the defendant in the prosecution which is claimed to be malicious, and which might be given in evidence on the trial without being pleaded (Molony a. Dows, 15 How. Pr. R., 261); yet it may also be regarded as an averment of special injury, and as such may be necessary to enable the plaintiff to give proof in respect to it.

In either point of view, however, the plaintiff cannot be aggrieved by it, and the motion must therefore be denied.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Abb. Pr. 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brockleman-v-brandt-nyctcompl-1859.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack