Case Name: The Liquid Carbonic Acid Manufacturing Company v. C. F. Adolph Convert et al.
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1900-06-21
Citations: 186 Ill. 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Liquid Carbonic Acid Manufacturing Company v. C. F. Adolph Convert et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 186
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
The Liquid Carbonic Acid Manufacturing Company v. C. F. Adolph Convert et al.
Opinion filed June 21, 1900.
This case is controlled by the decision in Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co. 175 Ill. 619.
Liquid Carbonic Acid Manf. Co. v. Convert, 82 Ill. App. 39, affirmed.
Appeal from the Branch Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.
We take the following statement of facts from the opinion of the Appellate Court:
“This is an action for malicious prosecution. The declaration alleges that the defendant Convert had been formerly employed by the plaintiff corporation as one of its superintendents and was discharged for insubordination and fraud; that thereupon he organized a rival company, and then, for the purpose of injuring the good name and credit of the plaintiff, and ‘to have said plaintiff adjudged insolvent and wholly ruin said plaintiff, ’ made an application for the appointment of a receiver "to wind up its affairs as an insolvent corporation, and made an affidavit that the plaintiff was in an insolvent condition, about to dispose of its assets. The other defendants are charged with having conspired with Convert for the purposes aforesaid, and with having advised and procured the action complained of [they being his attorneys in the original suit.] It is averred that a hearing of the application for a receiver was had upon affidavits filed in support thereof; that thereupon the application for a receiver was denied and the prosecution of such application then and there abandoned. It is not alleged that the suit in which the application was made has been determined. Apparently it has not been. The declaration was demurred to generally and specially, and the demurrer having been sustained the plaintiff elected to stand by its declaration. The suit was’dismissed and plaintiff appeals.”
Alden, Latham & Young, for appellant.
Israel Cowen, and Maurice M. Houseman, for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Phillips
delivered the opinion of the court:
The questions involved in this case are fully determined in Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co. 175 Ill. 619, adversely to the views of the appellant. It is unnecessary to repeat their discussion.
The judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District is affirmed.
judgment affirmed.