Legal Opinion
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Scott
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided June 21, 1898PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Trespass on the Case, for malicious prosecution. Trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Haneoy, Judge, presiding. Verdict for plaintiff, §2,500. Remittitur by suggestion of the court, §2,100. Judgment for §400. Appeal by defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Freeman
“To maintain an action for malicious prosecution, it must appear that there was not probable cause for the prosecution, and also that the defendants were actuated by malice in instituting the prosecution. There must be both want of probable cause and malice.” Harpham v. Whitney, 77 Ill. 32-38.
The absence of probable cause must be clearly shown by a preponderance of the evidence, and the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that there was no such cause. If there was reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Harpham v. WhitneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Palmer v. RichardsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by5 opinions
- Stueber v. Admiral Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
- Stueber v. Admiral Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- Clark v. HillAppellate Court of Illinois · 1901
- Frank Parmelee Co. v. GriffinAppellate Court of Illinois · 1907
- Donald Lee Schnoor v. C. E. Linkiewicz, Carl W. Larson, First State Bank of Calumet City and Wally TroyanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1968