Winnie v. Pond

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Winnie v. Pond

34 Conn. 391

DecidedSeptember 15, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Conn. 391 (Winnie v. Pond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winnie v. Pond, 34 Conn. 391 (Colo. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

Only one of the questions presented by the record in this case is now relied on by the defendant. He [393]*393claims that the first countin the declaration is in trespass quare clausum, and that the second is in case for a malicious prosecution. If lie takes a correct view of the -declaration there would seem to be force in this- claim. But the injury of which the plaintiffs complain is the same in both counts, to wit, breaking, entering and injuring their dwelling house, by ■ means of which they and their families were greatly annoyed and disturbed in the peaceful possession and occupation of the house. The first count is in trespass,"and in the ordinary form. The second is in case, and substantially alleges., the doing of the same acts, under color of legal proceedings; that the defendant without reasonable or probable cause wrongfully prayed out a search warrant against one French, who resided in the house, and by means thereof caused the house to be searched, thereby causing the injury complained of.

If however there was any doubt as to the intention of the pleader, it would seem to be removed by the averment in the second count, that it was “ for the same cause of action as in said first count contained.” This averment is not repugnant to anything else contained in the declaration and must be regarded as decisive of-the question. Havens v. Hartford & New Haven R. R. Co., 26 Conn., 225.

There is no error in the judgment complained of.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Carpenter, J.

Only one of the questions presented by the record in this case is now relied on by the defendant. He [393]*393claims that the first countin the declaration is in trespass quare clausum, and that the second is in case for a malicious prosecution. If lie takes a correct view of the -declaration there would seem to be force in this- claim. But the injury of which the plaintiffs complain is the same in both counts, to wit, breaking, entering and injuring their dwelling house, by ■ means of which they and their families were greatly annoyed and disturbed in the peaceful possession and occupation of the house. The first count is in trespass,"and in the ordinary form. The second is in case, and substantially alleges., the doing of the same acts, under color of legal proceedings; that the defendant without reasonable or probable cause wrongfully prayed out a search warrant against one French, who resided in the house, and by means thereof caused the house to be searched, thereby causing the injury complained of.

If however there was any doubt as to the intention of the pleader, it would seem to be removed by the averment in the second count, that it was “ for the same cause of action as in said first count contained.” This averment is not repugnant to anything else contained in the declaration and must be regarded as decisive of-the question. Havens v. Hartford & New Haven R. R. Co., 26 Conn., 225.

There is no error in the judgment complained of.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Conn. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winnie-v-pond-conn-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack