Exner v. Exner

2 Abb. N. Cas. 108
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1876
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Abb. N. Cas. 108 (Exner v. Exner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Exner v. Exner, 2 Abb. N. Cas. 108 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1876).

Opinion

Lawrence, J.

The first paragraph in the complaint I do not regard as irrelevant, nor does the complaint seem to me to be subject to the objections taken to the complaints in Eddy v. Beach (7 Abb. Pr. 18), and Shaw v. Jayne (4 How. Pr. 119). In those cases the pleader had set forth at great length the evidence by which he intended to substantiate the fact of his illegal imprisonment by the defendants, or through their instigation. Here there is a charge of a conspiracy on the part of two of the defendants to imprison the plaintiff, and that, in pursuance of such conspiracy, the other two defendants were employed to make the arrest.

The second paragraph does not appear to set forth more than one cause of action when fairly construed, that cause of action being for an illegal or false imprisonment.

The objection to the allegation that the plaintiff was prevented from attending to her children, one of whom was very ill, seems to be well founded. The allegation is irrelevant, and should be stricken out. Motion is granted to the extent above indicated ; no costs.

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

Related

Shaw v. Jayne
4 How. Pr. 119 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Abb. N. Cas. 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exner-v-exner-nysupct-1876.