Stewart v. Mulligan
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action, for damages; from city court of Fitzgerald — Judge Wall. May 3, 1912.
1Opinion of the CourtPottle, J.
1. An action for the malicious use of process in a civil suit will lie where the person of the defendant is arrested or his property attached. Woodley v. Coker, 119 Ga. 226 (46 8. E. 89). The petition in the present case set forth a cause of action of the nature above indicated.
*6612. Evidence of a general disregard of the right consideration of mankind, directed by chance against the individual injured, is sufficient proof of malice. Civil Code (1910), § 4451.
3. Malice may be inferred from a total want of probable cause. Civil Code (1910), § 4444; Hicks v. Brantley, 102 Ga. 264 (29 S. E. 459);…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hicks v. BrantleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Woodley v. CokerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Lockett & Williams v. Gress Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hearn v. BatchelorCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Jacksonville Paper Co. v. OwenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Pollard v. PhelpsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
- Thornton v. StoryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Price v. Fidelity Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.