Lohrfink v. Still
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. This was an action for a malicious prosecution, brought by the appellee against the appellant. The declaration was in the usual form, except that it omitted to aver that the alleged malicious prosecution was “without probable cause.” Plea, non cul. 1st Exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. This was an action for a malicious prosecution, brought by the appellee against the appellant. The declaration was in the usual form, except that it omitted to aver that the alleged malicious prosecution was “without probable cause.” Plea, non cul. 1st Exception. After the testimony had been closed, and several prayers offered on the part of the defendant and acted on by the court, but which need not be stated, the plaintiff asked leave to amend his declaration, by inserting in a speci'fied place the words, “and without any reasonable or…
1Opinion of the Court
Bartol, I.,
delivered the opinion of this court.
This is an action for a malicious prosecution. The declaration was defective, in not averring that the alleged malicious prosecution was “without probable cause.” That such aver*535jncnt was essential is not now, and has never been, doubted. It constitutes the gist of the action. 2 Chitty's Pl., 608, 609, note (x.) 2 Saund. Pl. & Ev., 652, 654, 659. 7 Cowen, 717.
After the jury had been sworn, and all the evidence offered to them, the plaintiff asked leave to amend the declaration, by inserting the words, “without any reasonable or probable cause…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Satterlund v. BealNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Scarlett v. Academy of MusicCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- Ingram v. Bank of CommerceNebraska Supreme Court · 1925
- Cecil County Board of Education v. PursleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- Washington Homes, Inc. v. Interstate General Development, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975