CASE. A question contested before a court of justice. An action or suit at law or in equity. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 352, 4 L. Ed. 97.
A. case arising under a treaty, within U. S. Const. art. 3, § 2, is a suit in which the validity or construction of a treaty of the United States is drawn in question; 2 Sto. Const. § 1647; and under the judiciary act of 1789, § 25, the United States supreme court exercises an appellate jurisdiction in such cases decided by a state court only when the decision of the latter is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption set up or claimed by the party seeking to have the decision reviewed; Martin v. 'Hunter, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 356, 4 L. Ed. 97. The deci sion of the state court against the claimant must be upon the construction of the treaty ; if it rests upon other grounds it Is not a case arising under a treaty, and the supreme court is without any jurisdiction; Gill v. Oliver, 11 How. (U. S.) 529, 13 L. Ed. 799; Williams v. Oliver, 12 How. (U. S.) 111, 13 L. Ed. 915.
In Practice. A form of action which lies to recover damages for Injuries for which the more ancient forms of action will not lie. Steph. P1.,. And. ed. § 52.
Case, or, more fully, action upon the case, or tres pass on the case, includes in its widest saws as sumpait and trover, and distinguishes a class of actions in which the writ is frambd according to the special circumstances of the case, from the an cient actions, the writs in which, called brevia for mate, are collected in the Registrum Brevium. By the common law, and by the statute Weetm. 2d, 13 Edw. I. c. 24, if any cause of action arose for which no remedy had been provided, a new writ was to be formed, analogous to those already In exist ence which were adapted to similar causes of ac tion. The writ of trespass was the original writ most commonly resorted to as a precedent ; and in process of time the term trespass seems to have been so extended as to include every species of wrong causing an injury, whether it was malfeas ance, misfeasance, Or nonfeasance, apparently for the purpose of enabling an action on the case to be brought in the king's bench. It thus includes ac tions on the case for breach of a parol undertaking, now called assumpslt (see AssuMrsrr), and actions based upon a finding and subsequent unlawful con version of property, now called trover (see Teoven), as well as many other actions upon the case which seem to have been derived from other originals than the writ of trespass, as nuisance, deceit, etc.
And, as the action had thus lost the peculiar character of a technical trespass,' the name was to a great extent dropped, and actions of this character came to be known as actions on the case.
As used at the present day, case is distinguished from anion/pet and covenant, in that it is not founded upon any contract, exprese or implied; from trover, which lies only for unlawful conver sion; from detinue and replevin, in that it Ilea only to recover damages ; and from trespass, in that 12 lies for injuries committed without force, or for forcible injuries which damage the plaintiff conse quentially only, and In other respects. Sea 3 Reeves, Eng. Law 84 ; 1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 237 ; 1 Chit. Pl. 123; 3 Bia. Com. 41; Poll. Tort 645; 5 Term 64$. A similar division existed In the civil law, In which upon nominate contracts an action distin guished by the name of the contract was given. Upon innominate contracts, however, an action Prce scriptis verbis (which lay where the obligation was one already recognized as existing at law, but to which no name had been given), or in }astern (which was founded on the equity of the particular case), might be brought.
The action lies for: Torts not committed with force, actual or implied; Metcalf v. Alley, 24 N. C. 38; Law v. Law, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 366; Griffin v. Far well, 20 Vt. 151;. as, for malicious prosecu tion; Muse v. Vidal, 6 Muni. (Va.) 27; Sha ver v. White, 6 Munf. (Va.) 113, 8 Am. Dec. 730; Warfield v. Walter, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 80; Hays v. Younglove, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 545; Seay v. Greenwood, 21 Ala. 491; Lally v. Cantwell, 30 Mo. App. 524; Swift v. Cham berlain, 3 Conn. 537 ; 5 M. & W. 270; see MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; fraud in contracts of sale; Hughes v. Robertson, 1 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 215, 15 Am. Dec. 104; Ward v. Wiman, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 193; Casco Mfg. Co. v. Dix on, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 407; Mowry v. Schroder, 4 Strobh. (S. C.) 69; Johnson v. McDaniel, 15 Ark. 109; Oliver v. Perkins, 92 Mich. 304, 52 N. W. 609; conspiracy to defame; Wildee v. McKee, 111 Pa. 335, 2 Atl. 108, 56 Am. Rep. 271.