Case Name: DOANE et al. v. HESCOCK et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-10-14
Citations: 155 N.Y.S. 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: DOANE et al. v. HESCOCK et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 155
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
DOANE et al. v. HESCOCK et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
October 14, 1915.)
1. Malicious Pbosecution @=?14—Actions—Right to Maintain.
Mere inconvenience and expense in defending a civil action will not, where there .was no damage to business or reputation, or interference with personal or property rights, support an action for malicious prosecution of a civil action.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Malicious Prosecution, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. @=14.]
2. Process @=>168—Abuse of—Right of Action.
Where there was no interference with personal or property rights or injury to business or reputation, the mere institution of a civil action, which occasioned the party inconvenience and expense, will not support an action for abuse of process.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Process, Cent. Dig. § 257; Dec. Dig. @=>168.]
Bijur, J., dissenting.
<§z5>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by Francis H. Doane and another against Ethan H. Hescock and others. From an order granting defendants’ motion for judgments on the pleadings, and a judgment entered thereon, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
See, also, 153 N. Y. S. 424.
Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGE, and SHEARN, JJ.
John E. O’Brien, of New York City, for appellants.
Lewis R. Conklin, of New York City (Lewis R. Conklin and William A. Montross, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
PAGE, J.
It clearly appears that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of process, nor are the allegations sufficient to support an action for malicious prosecution of a civil action in this state. There is no allegation that the action resulted in damages to the business or reputation of the defendant or that in any way his personal or property rights were interfered with. The sole allegation as to damage is the trouble, inconvenience, and expense of defending the action. This is not sufficient. Paul v. Fargo, 84 App. Div. 9, 11, 13 (dissenting opinion, 21), 82 N. Y. Supp. 369; Fulton v. Ingalls, 165 App. Div. 323, 326, 151 N. Y. Supp. 130.
The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
SPIEARN, J., concurs.