Baker v. Hornick
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Benet, J., Charleston, January, 1899. Action by Henry Baker against M. Hornick and S. Rittenburg. So much of the charge of the Circuit Judge as pertains to the cpiestions raised is as follows: In an action of this character, gentlemen, malice is the principal element.
Read the full summary
Before Benet, J., Charleston, January, 1899. Action by Henry Baker against M. Hornick and S. Rittenburg. So much of the charge of the Circuit Judge as pertains to the cpiestions raised is as follows: In an action of this character, gentlemen, malice is the principal element. The ground of the complaint is an alleged malicious prosecution, and such an action may be brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of his having beeen prosecuted for some crime or offense by a defendant, or at the instance of the defendant, from malicious motives, and without probable cause. There…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice McIver.
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. The case came on for trial before his Honor, Judge Benet, and a jury, and a verdict having been rendered in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff appeals upon the several exceptions set out in the record. Inasmuch as these exceptions only impute error to the Circuit Judge in using the language extracted from the charge in the several exceptions, it will be necessary for the reporter to incorporate in his report of this case so much of the charge as is…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Jennings v. Clearwater Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1934
- Patterson v. BoganSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1973
- Hyde v. Southern Grocery Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1941
- Elletson v. Dixie Home StoresSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1957
- Pulliam v. OttMississippi Supreme Court · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.