“The plaintiff sets the law in motion; if he does so groundlessly and maliciously, he is the cause of the defendant’s damage. But the defendant stands only on his legal rights,—the plaintiff having taken his case to court, the defendant has the privilege of calling upon him to prove it to the satisfaction of the judge or jury, and he is guilty of no wrong in exercising this privilege.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “The plaintiff sets the law in motion; if he does so groundlessly and maliciously, he is the cause of the defendant’s damage. But the defendant stands only on his legal rights,—the plaintiff having taken his case to court, the defendant has the privilege of calling upon him to prove it to the satisfaction of the judge or jury, and he is guilty of no wrong in exercising this privilege.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Morrison, C. J., concurring
-In his charge to the jury the court said: “ I charge you that it will be your duty to allow him (the plaintiff) all that he paid out and expended in the defense of the former suit, both counsel fees and all other expenses paid out by him ; and in addition thereto you may award such damages, in all not exceeding five thousand six hundred dollars, by way of exemplary or punitive damages.”
I think the foregoing instruction erroneous. The jury was told that they should allow the plaintiff all that he paid out and expended in the defense of the former suit. The allowance in this respect should have been confined to such an amount as was reasonably laid out and expended.
Without expressing any opinion on other points decided in the main opinion, I concur in the reversal of the judgment on the ground above stated, and I think the action maintainable.