Kuhns v. Ward-Mackey Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 196, April T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1910, No. 787, for defendant n. o. v. in case of Charles L. Kuhns v. Ward-Mackey Company. Trespass for malicious prosecution.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 196, April T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1910, No. 787, for defendant n. o. v. in case of Charles L. Kuhns v. Ward-Mackey Company. Trespass for malicious prosecution. Before MacEARLANE, J. At the trial it appeared that Charles L. Kuhns, the plaintiff, was employed by the defendant to deliver bread to the latter’s customers, make cash collections for the same and to turn in daily reports of bread sold and cash collected. On two occasions his reports showed a shortage. He made good the first shortage, and when charged with the second…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. In such cases, if it be made to appear there was probable cause for beginning the prosecution complained of, a complete defense is made out. The existence or nonexistence of probable cause is a legal conclusion to be drawn from established facts. If the facts necessary to support such conclusion are admitted or established by uncontradicted evidence, it becomes the duty of the court to declare, as matter of law, that such defense has or has not been made out.
At the close of the evidence the learned…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gow v. Adams Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Wolf v. SternSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Trautman v. WillockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Darrah v. Oakland Motor Car Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1926
- Herron v. Universal Auto Loan Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1944
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.