Searll v. McCracken

16 How. Pr. 262
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 16 How. Pr. 262 (Searll v. McCracken) 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
Searll v. McCracken, 16 How. Pr. 262 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).

Opinion

Clerke, Justice.

The complaint does not state that the order of arrest which it alleges the defendant maliciously and falsely obtained against the plaintiff in another action, had been vacated, or that judgment had been rendered for the defendant therein. If the order was a nullity ah initio, and Could afford no justification, these allegations would be unnecessary. But the order set forth in this complaint is clearly not void. If at all defective, and issued on a false affidavit, it is only voidable; and this must be determined by the competent authority, before an action can be sustained against the persons who procured it. (Reynolds agt. Corss, 3 Cai. R. 271; Burt agt. Place, 4 Wend. 597.)

Judgment for defendants on the demurrer, with costs, unless plaintiff amend complaint, and pay costs within ten days.

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

Related

Francisco v. Little Falls Dairy Co.
163 Misc. 170 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Forster v. Orr
21 P. 440 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1889)
Moulton v. Beecher
1 Abb. N. Cas. 193 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 How. Pr. 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/searll-v-mccracken-nysupct-1858.