Frissell v. Relfe
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Francois Circuit Court. 1. The instructions of the court contain a correct exposition of the law governing the case. In order to maintain an action for a malicious prosecution, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show, 1st, that the prosecution was instituted from malicious motives; and, 2nd, that there was no probable cause for instituting the prosecution. If either of these be wanting, the action must fail.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Francois Circuit Court. 1. The instructions of the court contain a correct exposition of the law governing the case. In order to maintain an action for a malicious prosecution, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show, 1st, that the prosecution was instituted from malicious motives; and, 2nd, that there was no probable cause for instituting the prosecution. If either of these be wanting, the action must fail. Stone v. Crocker. 24 Pick. 81; 2 Stark on Ev. 494-5; George v. Radford, 3 C. & P. 464; Gibson vs. Ohaters, 2 B. & P. 129; Silversides v. Bowley, 1 Moore, 92; Farmer v.…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was an action for a malicious prosecution brought by Frissell against Jas. H. &. A. C. Relfe, and Á. L Magenis, in the circuit court of Washington county, and transferred upon application of > he Relfes, to St. Francois county. The defendants had a verdict and judgment.
Before the trial a noL pros, was entered as to Magenis. The de. claration charged a conspiracy and combination on the part of Magnus and the Relfes, to injure the plaintiff, by causing him to be fined cud imprisoned, &e., and that by corrupt and false swearing of the said A. C. Relfe, a rule had been entered by the circuit…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brown v. WeldonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- In re Assessment of Collateral Inheritance Tax in Estate of LankfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
- State v. McKiernanNevada Supreme Court · 1882