Monroe v. Maples
1 Root 553
Opinion
If this is to be considered as an action upon the case for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff hath not shown that he was acquitted, but that he was convicted. If as an action for [555] tbe injury done bim by tbe defendants’ false swearing and perjury, it is not brought upon tbe statute, nor witbin tbe time limited by law; and it would be of dangerous consequence to admit actions of tbis nature to be against witnesses after so great a lapse of time.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Monroe v. Maples, 1 Root 553 (Colo. 1793).
1 Root 553 (Monroe v. Maples) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Paint Products Co. v. Minwax Co., Inc.
448 F. Supp. 656 (D. Connecticut, 1978)
Frisbie v. Morris
55 A. 9 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1903)
Moulton v. Beecher
1 Abb. N. Cas. 193 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Brown v. Randall
36 Conn. 56 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1869)