Woodman v. Prescott
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for malicious prosecution. Verdict for the plaintiff. At the October term, 1885, the grand jury, on the complaint of the defendant, returned an indictment against the plaintiff for larceny (under Gen. Laws, c. 278, s. 11) alleged to have been committed, and which was committed, if at all, in March, 1880. A nolle prosequi was entered at the October term, 1886. The plaintiff has always resided in this state.
Read the full summary
Case, for malicious prosecution. Verdict for the plaintiff. At the October term, 1885, the grand jury, on the complaint of the defendant, returned an indictment against the plaintiff for larceny (under Gen. Laws, c. 278, s. 11) alleged to have been committed, and which was committed, if at all, in March, 1880. A nolle prosequi was entered at the October term, 1886. The plaintiff has always resided in this state. There was evidence tending to show that the defendant had no knowledge of the facts on which the prosecution was founded until 1885, and that the nolle prosequi was entered because…
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
To maintain an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must show that the proceeding complained of as malicious was instituted without probable cause and is ended. “ The new action must not be brought before the first be determined, because till then it cannot appear that the first was unjust.” Bull. N. P. 12. If the first action is still pending, or if there has been a judgment against the plaintiff, or if he has terminated the suit by paying what was demanded (unless the payment was made under duress— Morton v. Young, 55 Me. 24), or by compromise, he cannot be admitted to say that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Langford v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Cardival v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Driggs v. BurtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
- Brown v. RandallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Stanton v. HartMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Joy Laskar, PH.D. v. Phillip W. HurdCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
- Robinson v. Fimbel Door Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
- Lamprey v. H. P. Hood & SonsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Zinicola v. MacDonald, LLC, et al.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2018