Shoemaker v. Covenhoven

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Shoemaker v. Covenhoven

3 N.J.L. 684

DecidedSeptember 15, 1810

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.J.L. 684 (Shoemaker v. Covenhoven) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shoemaker v. Covenhoven, 3 N.J.L. 684 (N.J. 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

— The action below was brought for a malicious prosecution; and the facts disclosed in the state of demand are, that the defendant below made a complaint to the grand jury against the plaintiff below, and that the grand jury did not then find a bill; that at the next court lie renewed the complaint before another grand jury, and that grand jury found a bill of indictment against the plaintiff below', whereby he was put to costs. — We are clear that an action cannot be maintained on these facts.

Judgment reversed.

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

By the Court.

— The action below was brought for a malicious prosecution; and the facts disclosed in the state of demand are, that the defendant below made a complaint to the grand jury against the plaintiff below, and that the grand jury did not then find a bill; that at the next court lie renewed the complaint before another grand jury, and that grand jury found a bill of indictment against the plaintiff below', whereby he was put to costs. — We are clear that an action cannot be maintained on these facts.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.J.L. 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoemaker-v-covenhoven-nj-1810.