Schott v. Mabley

• Citation: 11 N.W. 390,47 Mich. 572
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 25 January 1882
• Parties: SCHOTT v. MABLEY. SCHWAB v. MABLEY. LEROUX and another v. MABLEY and another.

11 N.W. 390

47 Mich. 572

SCHOTT v. MABLEY.

SCHWAB v. MABLEY.

LEROUX and another v. MABLEY and another.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 25, 1882

While an allegation of mere conspiracy need not in all cases show the specific means which the conspirators intend to use, the illegal purpose which they were to accomplish must be described accurately.

Mere delay or prevention of a trial is not necessarily improper or illegal, and there can be no wrong in securing it except by illegal means.

An allegation that unlawful acts were performed is not sufficient. The acts themselves should be alleged, so that the legal conclusions can be drawn. An allegation that a trial was prevented by "divers false pretences, subtle means, and devices," is insufficient.

Error to superior court of Detroit.

Griffin, Dickinson, Thurber & Hosmer, for plaintiffs in error.

Wisner & Speed, for defendants in error.

CAMPBELL J.

These actions are in most respects alike in allegations, and are in all respects alike in the legal questions involved. They are all for damages alleged to have arisen from a conspiracy to defeat the several plaintiffs in prosecuting or enforcing legal proceedings. In Schwab's case the interference was alleged to have been with the enforcement of a judgment. In the other cases it referred to pending suits and the interference was to delay and prevent the trial.

The allegation of a mere conspiracy need not, perhaps, in all cases, show the specific means which the conspirators intend to use, because they may reserve some latitude as to choice of expedients. But the illegal purpose which they mean to accomplish must be described accurately, because unless the object is illegal, or means agreed upon are illegal, there is no wrong chargeable. The delay or prevention of a trial is not necessarily improper or illegal, and there can be no wrong in securing it except by illegal means. It is not enough to aver that acts done or intended are unlawful or illegal. The acts complained of must be definitely and issuably shown, so that if the facts themselves should be admitted the court can draw legal conclusions. An averment that a party has acted unlawfully, without showing what he did, is not an averment of issuable facts. But although a conspiracy may be punishable criminally where an illegal purpose is sufficiently shown, without proof of its further execution, this is not so in civil proceedings. No one can complain civilly of any action of another, unless he has been unlawfully damaged thereby. This is one of the first elements of the law. ...