Chicago Forge & Bolt Co. v. Rose
Appellate Court of Illinois
Malicious Prosecutions.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Sears, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Waterman
To the maintenance of an action for malicious prosecution, proof of two things is essential, viz. : A want of probable cause for the prosecution complained of, and that it was malicious. Proof of a want of probable cause having been made, malice may, but need not be, inferred by the jury; but from proof of malice the jury can not infer that there was a lack of probable cause. Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co., 66 Ill. App. 516; Epstein v. Berkowsky, 64 Ill. App. 498.
In the present case, the issue was not whether appellee was guilty of the offense for which he had been prosecuted.
A question…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Harpham v. WhitneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Mercer v. WatsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Anderson v. FriendIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Close v. StuartCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
- Union National Bank v. Manistee Lumber Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Larkins v. Terminal RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1905
- Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. TuebbeckeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1907