White v. Dingley

Decided May 15, 1808

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1808-05-15

<p>A creditor gives his debtor a license for two years, and in the letter of license covenants that he will not sue, &c., and that if he shall sue, the debtor shall be discharged of his debt; notwithstanding which, he sues within the two years, and the debtor pleads the letter of license in bar, and has judgment; he cannot afterwards maintain an action against the creditor on the covenant.</p> <p>No action lies for damages sustained by being sued in a civil action, unless such an action was malicious and without probable cause.</p>

Cited in Bouvier (1839)’s definition of “Penalty”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1808-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025

16 state decisions — followed in 10 states

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 →

¶1The opinion of the Court was afterwards delivered by

Parsons, C. J.

¶2We are satisfied that this action cannot be maintained. The forfeiture of the debt is not in the nature of a penalty, but is a liquidation of the damages to be paid in case of a breach of the covenant on the part of the creditor. The parties have made their contract, and we have no authority to alter it, or to make another for them in its stead.

¶3No action, by the common law, lies for damages sustained by suing a civil action, when the plaintiff fails, unless it be alleged and shown to be malicious, and without probable cause.

¶4 Defendant’s plea good.