Phelps V. Hitchcock. within a foreign jurisdiction. If the demand of Finch Goddard and is just, which is the pretence for this violation of our rights, is it therefore no injury to be compelled to attend a Court at a great distance, to be subjected to the necessary and augmented expenses in a strange land, to say nothing of the fees of advocates, which are known to be much greater than in our own Courts. pass on the case Darius Chipman, for the demurrant. Our opponents having argued themselves into the opinion that there is no substance in their declaration, now seem determined to rely upon the form. The declaration is said to be in the nature of an action of conspiracy, and that there is sufficient to sustain it in the very language of it. Every sufficient declaration in tresmust set forth an injury sustained by the plaintiff, and make out a case for which an action will lie. The merely stating that the defendants have confederated and combined, unless some injurious and unlawful act is stated as the consequence of their combination and confederacy, is of no more avail than if the plaintiff had allegated that defendants had Confederated and combined to feed and clothe the plaintiff. The gist of the action of conspiracy is an injury sustained as the effect of it. Here is none set forth, unless the exposing a man to justice is an injury. After so much has been said of the just abhorrence in which the law holds deceit, it seems confessed that there is a certain pia fraus at which my brother Chipman's morality does not revolt. He acknowledges, that if the plaintiff had concealed himself and property, some kind of deceit might have been lawfully used to entice him into daylight. But where is the difference? In this case were not the plaintiff and his property effectually concealed from his creditor? He had not, it is true, hidden himself in the caves of the rocks, but he had completely concealed himself from his honest creditor under the dark cloud of our limitation statute. But wherein consists the moral turpitude of the deceit allegated to have been practised; for the charge of bribery is dehors the record. I should esteem it a moral duty to assist an honest creditor in recovering a bona fide debt. It is said this action is not brought against the creditor or officer making the arrest; conceding, I presume, that it could not be maintained against either of them. But if the act was legal in them, is it not in my clients, their servants? But if this declaration should be sustained, what is to be the measure of damages? Shall it be Finch's demand? The action upon that demand, we learn from the declaration, is now pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New-York. The writ may abate, or judgment may be for the present plaintiff; or if judgment for Finch, it may be reversed by error. Can we now know what will be the quantum of da in that suit? If we could, is it right that my clients should respond it in damages under the present suit? mages It is said, costs will accrue in that suit, and advocates' fees will be great, and expenses of attendin Court will be heavy. But if these are taken into consideration in the inquiry after damages in this suit, would not such items be the foundation of an action in every case where a citizen of this State seeks redress against his fellow-citizen in another State, where the expense of living, costs of Court, and fees of advocates, may be higher than in this State? The case cited from Root's Reports does not touch the present case. On the whole, we consider that the plaintiff, in the declaration in question, has set forth no cause of action. If he has counted on any damage sustained, it is damnum absque injuria. The Chief Judge delivered the opinion of the Court. It is to be regretted, that so wide a difference in the laws of the respective States of the Union, and of the decisions of their Courts upon similar subjects, exist. It often operates to the detriment of suitors. It is to be hoped, that at some not far distant day, the publication of reports of decisions in the State Courts will effect a greater uniformity in law and decision. Until then, nought remains but for each State to promulgate such laws as meet the sense and habits of its own citizens, and for each State Judiciary to administer them faithfully. The Court are not prepared to say that they would sustain an action as against Finch the creditor, who had undoubtedly a right to give the preference to his own State laws and Court, to obtain payment from the present plaintiff of a bona fide debt recoverable in that State, but limited in ours. But the present defendants were strangers to the contract, had no interest in the suit instituted to compel the fulfilment of it, and were fellow citizens with the plaintiff. It certainly is not for the peace of society to sanction combinations to entice our fellowcitizens within the jurisdiction of other States, and the process of their Courts. The law abhors deceit, and it is to be hoped that our halls of justice will be the last places polluted with the maxim of modern ethics, that the end justifies the means. The laws of the Union, and those of our own State, provide for the apprehension and removal out of the State, of persons charged with crimes committed in another State; but they have made no such provision in civil process. Let judgment be entered that the declaration is sufficient, and that the defendants answer over. S. Miller and Daniel Chipman, for plaintiff. Phelps V. Goddard and Hitchcock. CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF VERMONT. RUTLAND COUNTY, JANUARY TERM, In case upon a written con ASA FARNUM et al. Appellants, against SOLOMON BARNUM et al. Appellees. PLAINTIFFS declare, that the defendants, on tract, it may be the 17th of May, 1797, in consideration that the read in evi dence to the plaintiffs forebore to prosecute Solomon Barnum for Jury, if it sub- divers sums due from said Solomon to them, the stantially com ports with the amount thereof thereafter to be ascertained by and declaration. between the said Solomon and the plaintiffs, if said Solomon did not pay such sums within two years from the day last mentioned, they the defendants |