Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 How. Pr. 262

Searll v. McCracken

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1858

New York Supreme Court · decided 1858-04-15

<p>In an action for maliciously and falsely obtaining an order of arrest against the plaintiff in another action, the complaint is defective where it omits to state that the order of arrest had been vacated, or that judgment had been rendered for the defendant therein, unless it appears that the order was a nullity áb initio.</p>

Relies on Burt v. Place

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1937

3 state decisions

10185818601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Clerke, Justice.

¶1The 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.)

¶2Judgment for defendants on the demurrer, with costs, unless plaintiff amend complaint, and pay costs within ten days.

/16/howpr/262 · .json · Public domain