Collins v. Love

7 Blackf. 416, 1845 Ind. LEXIS 54
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 5, 1845
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 7 Blackf. 416 (Collins v. Love) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Collins v. Love, 7 Blackf. 416, 1845 Ind. LEXIS 54 (Ind. 1845).

Opinion

A COUNT in malicious prosecution alleged that the defendant, intending, &c., went before a justice, &c., and falsely, &c., and without, &c., charged the plaintiff, &c., and thereupon falsely, &c., and without, &c., procured the justice to make his warrant, &c. Held, that the count was not objectionable because the alleged charge did not authorize the issuing of the warrant.

A count in such action stated that the defendant contriving, &c., heretofore, viz., on, &c., at, &c., falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause whatever, charged the plaintiff with having committed perjury, and with having wilfully and feloniously, &c., sworn false, &c., and on the last-mentioned charge, on, &c., at, &c., falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause whatever, procured the plaintiff to be arrested by his body, and to be imprisoned for the space of twelve hours, [417]*417and until the defendant, afterwards, on, &c., at, &c., falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause whatever, procured the plaintiff to be conveyed in custody before Aaron Mote, then and there being a justice of the peace, &c., to be examined, &c.; that said justice, having heard and considered all that the defendant could say against the plaintiff, touching and concerning the said supposed offence, adjudged that the plaintiff was not guilty, &c., and caused him to be discharged, &c. To the plaintiff’s damage, &c. Held, that this count was not so defective as to authorize the Court to instruct the jury to disregard it.

In such suit against A. B., an affidavit charging the plaintiff, &c., proved to have been made by A. B., and agreeing with that described in the declaration, is admissible evidence for the plaintiff.

If a count would be considered good after verdict for the plaintiff, the jury ought not to be charged to disregard it.

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

Related

Navarino v. Dudrap
50 A. 353 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1901)
Harlan v. Jones
45 N.E. 481 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)
Potter v. Gjertsen
34 N.W. 746 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1887)
Taylor v. Rice
27 F. 264 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1886)
Pennsylvania Co. v. Weddle
100 Ind. 138 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Hahn v. Schmidt
30 P. 818 (California Supreme Court, 1883)
Castro v. De Uriarte
12 F. 250 (S.D. New York, 1882)
Dennis v. . Ryan
65 N.Y. 385 (New York Court of Appeals, 1875)
Sweet v. Negus
30 Mich. 406 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1874)
Shaul v. Brown
28 Iowa 37 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1869)
Stancliff v. Palmeter
18 Ind. 321 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1862)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Blackf. 416, 1845 Ind. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-love-ind-1845.