Vanderbilt v. Mathis
The Superior Court of New York City
This action came before the court, on questions of law arising at the trial, and which were there ordered to be heard in the first instance by the General Term.
Read the full summary
This action came before the court, on questions of law arising at the trial, and which were there ordered to be heard in the first instance by the General Term. It was tried before Mr. Justice Slosson, and a jury, in June, 1855. The action was brought to recover damages, on the allegations that the defendant, on the 27th of November, 1854, before R. E. Stilwell, a commissioner of the United States for the southern district of New York, falsely, maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause, complained and charged that the plaintiff had theretofore committed, perjury, by falsely…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Bosworth, J.
To maintain an action for malicious prosecution, three facts, if controverted, must be established :—
1. That the prosecution is at an end, and was determined in favor of the plaintiff
2. The want of probable cause.
3. Malice.
In such an action, it is necessary to give some evidence of the want of probable cause. It is insufficient to prove a mere acquittal ; that, alone, is not prima facie evidence of the want of probable cause. (Gorton v. De Angelis, 6 Wend. 418.)
It is equally essential, that the former prosecution should appear to have been maliciously instituted. Malice maybe inferred from ,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Murray v. LongNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Bulkeley v. SmithThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Gorton v. De AngelisNew York Supreme Court · 1831
3Cited by24 opinions
- McCarthy v. De ArmitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Hamilton v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Oliver v. PateIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Cole v. CurtisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
- Miller v. MilliganNew York Supreme Court · 1866
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.