Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 577.0

529US2

Unit: $U51

[09-26-01 10:31:04] PAGES PGT: OPIN

502

BECK v. PRUPIS

Opinion of the Court

stitute an independent tort”); Cohen v. Bowdoin, 288 A. 2d
106, 110 (Me. 1972) (“ ‘[C]onspiracy’ fails as the basis for the
imposition of civil liability absent the actual commission of
some independently recognized tort; and when such separate
tort has been committed, it is that tort, and not the fact of
combination, which is the foundation of the civil liability”);
Earp v. Detroit, 16 Mich. App. 271, 275, 167 N. W. 2d 841,
845 (1969) (“Recovery may be had from parties on the theory
of concerted action as long as the elements of the separate
and actionable tort are properly proved”); Mills v. Hansell,
378 F. 2d 53 (CA5 1967) (per curiam) (afﬁrming dismissal of
conspiracy to defraud claim because no defendant committed
an actionable tort); J. & C. Ornamental Iron Co. v. Watkins,
114 Ga. App. 688, 691, 152 S. E. 2d 613, 615 (1966) (“[The
plaintiff] must allege all the elements of a cause of action
for the tort the same as would be required if there were no
allegation of a conspiracy”); Lesperance v. North American
Aviation, Inc., 217 Cal. App. 2d 336, 345, 31 Cal. Rptr. 873,
878 (1963) (“[C]onspiracy cannot be made the subject of a
civil action unless something is done which without the con-
spiracy would give a right of action” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); Middlesex Concrete Products & Excavat-
ing Corp. v. Carteret Indus. Assn., 37 N. J. 507, 516, 181 A. 2d
774, 779 (1962) (“[A] conspiracy cannot be made the subject
of a civil action unless something has been done which, ab-
sent the conspiracy, would give a right of action”); Chapman
v. Pollock, 148 F. Supp. 769, 772 (WD Mo. 1957) (holding that
a plaintiff who charged the defendants with “conspiring to
perpetrate an unlawful purpose” could not recover because
the defendants committed no unlawful act); Olmsted, Inc. v.
Maryland Casualty Co., 218 Iowa 997, 998, 253 N. W. 804
(1934) (“[A] conspiracy cannot be the subject of a civil action
unless something is done pursuant to it which, without the
conspiracy, would give a right of action”); Adler v. Fenton,
24 How. 407, 410 (1861) (“[T]he act must be tortious, and
there must be consequent damage”).