¶1The declaration was not a good declaration tor a malicious prosecution; because it avers the institution of a suit in a court which had no jurisdiction. Bixby v. Brundige, 2 Gray, 129. And, though it is not easy, at first, to discern the precise object of the declaration, a closer examination reveals a suostantial declaration in trespass, with a running commentary of aggravation greatly exceeding the text. ' Exceptions overruled.
72 Mass. 246
Whiting v. Johnson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 15, 1856
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1856-03-15
Action of tort. The declaration averred that the defendants, not having any reasonable or probable cause of action against the plaintiff, but wrongfully and unjustly contriving and intending to harass, oppress and injure the plaintiff, and to seize and detain the property of the plaintiff without warrant of law, but under the color of void legal process, falsely and maliciously caused and procured to be sued out of the justices’ court for the county of Suffolk a writ of…
Decided 1856-03-15