Scarborough v. Goldsmith Jr.-Grant Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta-—Judge Beid. October 4, 1919. It was contended on the part of the plaintiff that the action was for malicious abuse of legal process, and therefore that it was not necessary to allege the termination of the litigation.
Read the full summary
Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta-—Judge Beid. October 4, 1919. It was contended on the part of the plaintiff that the action was for malicious abuse of legal process, and therefore that it was not necessary to allege the termination of the litigation. In the' brief of counsel for the defendant it was contended that the action could not prevail as an action for malicious abuse of legal process, because “ no abuse (illegal use) ” of the process was alleged; and that, as it was not alleged that the litigation had terminated, the action was not maintainable as a suit for malicious…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
1. “Malicious use of legal process is where a plaintiff in a civil proceeding employs the court’s process in order to execute the object which the law intends for such a process to subserve, but proceeds maliciously and without probable cause. In a suit for damages growing out of such malicious use of process, it must appear that the previous litigation has finally terminated against the plaintiff therein. Malicious abuse of legal process is where a plaintiff in a civil proceeding wilfully misapplies the process of a court in order to obtain an object which such a process is not intended by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brantley v. Rhodes-Haverty Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- McElreath v. GrossCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Mullins v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- King v. YarbraySupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Clement v. OrrCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gaines v. PirkleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938