, nonsuited the plaintiff
_because malice was not proved_; and he observed, that though Lord
Holt, in the case of _Ashby v. White_, endeavored to show that the
action lay for the obstruction of the right, yet the House of
Lords, in the justification of their conduct, supposed to be
written by the Chief Justice, puts it upon a different principle,
the _wilfulness of the act_. The declaration in that case was
copied from the precedent in _Milward v. Sargeant_, which came on
in this court on a writ of error, _Hill 26, Geo. 3_, for refusing
the plaintiff's vote for the borough of Hastings. There the charge
was 'that the defendant contriving and wrongfully intending to
injure and prejudice the plaintiff, and to hinder and deprive him
of his privilege of voting, did not take or allow his vote.' All
which allegations Mr. Justice Wilson, in the case above alluded to,
thought were essential to be proved in order to sustain the
action."
"_Per Curiam._ Rule discharged."
The Reporter's head note is: "An action does not lie against individuals
for acts erroneously done by them _in a corporate capacity_ from which
detriment has happened to the plaintiff. At least, not without proof of
malice.
Pages:
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185