McCoy v. Kalbach
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 147, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. York Co., Aug. T., 1909, No. 82, on directed verdict for defendant in case of Thomas McCoy v. A. M. Kalbach, J. G. Stauffer. Trespass to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Before Ross, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict for defendant by direction of the court. Plaintiff appealed. Errors assigned were various rulings of the trial judge and the charge to the jury.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Beown,
In an action for malicious prosecution, if the facts connected with the prosecution are admitted, or so clearly established as not to be open to dispute, the question of probable cause is for the court. Under admitted or indisputable facts in the case now before us, it was clearly incumbent upon the learned trial judge to declare that there was probable cause for Kalbach’s criminal prosecution of the appellant. This will be manifest from a brief recital of those facts.
A short time prior to October 6, 1908, Kalbach became the owner of a team of mules by purchase…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lafferty's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Dietz v. LangfittSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Schofield v. FerrersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Gilliford v. WindelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Allen v. International Text Book Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Miller v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Altman v. Standard Refrig. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Taylor v. American International Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Curley v. Automobile Finance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Werner v. BowersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.