Stansell & Younger v. Cleveland
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from. ¡Navarro. Tried below before the Hon. L. ¡D. Bradley. The appellants, Stansell & Younger, were retail merchants, having two stores in ¡Navarro county, one at ¡Dawson, the other at Cross Hoads.
Read the full summary
Appeal from. ¡Navarro. Tried below before the Hon. L. ¡D. Bradley. The appellants, Stansell & Younger, were retail merchants, having two stores in ¡Navarro county, one at ¡Dawson, the other at Cross Hoads. They were indebted to W. D. Cleveland, the appellee, in the sum of 81,993.93, to wit: two notes, dated 1st of February, 1884, one for $937.51, due 1st of June, 1884, the other for $937.52, due 1st of July, 1884; also an open account for $118.60. On the 16th day of March, 1884, before either of the notes became due, W. D. Cleveland sued out a writ of attachment, and had the same levied on…
1Opinion of the Court
Willie, Chief Justice.
The sole question in this case is: Was the attachment sued out through malice and without probable cause ?
As bearing upon the question of malice in suits like the present, the following general principles seem to be well recognized:
“ In a legal sense, any unlawful act done wilfully and purposely to the injury of another, is, as against that person, malicious.” 2 Greenl. on Ev., sec. 453.
To sustain an averment of malice in a suit of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must show that the charge against himself, upon which the suit is based, was wilfully false. Malice may…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Culbertson v. CabeenTexas Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by11 opinions
- Seven Elves, Incorporated v. Jack S. EskenaziCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- Beckham v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Behee v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1888
- Walters v. Texas Building & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Peerless Oil & Gas Co. v. TeasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.