Shong v. Stinchfield
North Dakota Supreme Court
Action for malicious prosecution in District Court, Bottineau County, Butiz, J. In actions for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, proof that defendant as prosecuting witness in good faitb fully and fairly stated all of the material facts within his knowledge to the prosecuting officer and acted on his advice establishes a case of probable cause.
Read the full summary
Action for malicious prosecution in District Court, Bottineau County, Butiz, J. In actions for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, proof that defendant as prosecuting witness in good faitb fully and fairly stated all of the material facts within his knowledge to the prosecuting officer and acted on his advice establishes a case of probable cause. Smith v. Tolan (Mich.) 122 N. W. 513; Baldwin v. Capitol Steam Laundry Co. (Minn.) 122 N. W. 46iO; Brisley v. Schuls, 124 Wis. 426, 102 N. 918. The question, whether the defendant was protected from a suit for malicious prosecution, when…
1ConcurrenceGrace, J.
(specially concurring). We are of the opinion, that the evidence clearly establishes want of probable cause.
In the case of Rhoads v. First Nat. Rank, 37 N. D. 421, 163 N. W. 1051, it was held that malice may be inferred where want of probable cause is proved.
We agree, as, in substance, is stated in the main opinion, that the verdict is not excessive, and that the record does not disclose the influence of passion, partiality, or prejudice.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rhoads v. First National BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917