Legal Opinion

Dolan v. Thompson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 1, 1879PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Tort ffw malicious prosecution. Writ dated February 20, 1875. Answer, a general denial. At th« trial in this court, before Lord, J., the plaintiff introduced. in evidence a copy of the record of the action brought against him by the defendants, by which it appeared that the writ was dated March 5, 1874, returnable at April term 1874, that the declaration was on an account annexed for $2981.84, for money advanced, and that an attachment' was made .of his goods ■ that at July…

Read the full summary

Tort ffw malicious prosecution. Writ dated February 20, 1875. Answer, a general denial. At th« trial in this court, before Lord, J., the plaintiff introduced. in evidence a copy of the record of the action brought against him by the defendants, by which it appeared that the writ was dated March 5, 1874, returnable at April term 1874, that the declaration was on an account annexed for $2981.84, for money advanced, and that an attachment' was made .of his goods ■ that at July term 1874, an answer puis darrein continuance was filed alleging that since the commencement of the action the…

1Opinion of the CourtSoule, J.

The plaintiff cannot maintain his action unless the evidence would justify a finding by the jury that the suit which is charged to have been malicious was instituted without probable cause by the defendants. The plaintiff contends that, by the terms of the contract between the parties, the defendants were to wait till all the goods consigned to them had been sold, before calling on him for repayment of moneys advanced to him ; and if this were so, it would be plain that there was no cause of action against him. But we do not so interpret the contract. The agreement was oral, and, as testified…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Newburger-Morris Co. v. . TalcottNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Balderston v. National Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1893
  3. Bailey-Ball-Pumphrey Co. v. GermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923
  4. Tunstill v. J. T. Fargason Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API