McClafferty v. Philp
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 34, October T., 1891, by defendant, J. P. Philp, from judgment of C. P. Yenango Co., April T., 1888, No. 24, on verdict for plaintiff, Henry Mc-Clafferty. Trespass for malicious prosecution.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 34, October T., 1891, by defendant, J. P. Philp, from judgment of C. P. Yenango Co., April T., 1888, No. 24, on verdict for plaintiff, Henry Mc-Clafferty. Trespass for malicious prosecution. The evidence on the trial before Taylor, P. J., was to the following effect: Plaintiff had given to defendant in part payment of purchase money of a sawmill and other property bought of Philp & Perry, a check and a note, aggregating $500, representing that he had money in the bank to meet the check and that the note would be paid at Robert’s bank, where he had money or would have money to meet…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Sterrett,
It was incumbent on the plaintiff to show not only that there was want of probable cause for the prosecution, but also that there was malice on the part of the prosecutor. Want of probable cause and malice must concur. While the former is evidence of malice, proper to be submitted to the jury, it does not establish legal malice to be declared by the court. Malice may be inferred from the want of probable cause, but if there be probable cause, it matters not that the prosecutor was actuated by malice. Probable cause is generally defined to be a reasonable ground…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCarthy v. De ArmitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
3Cited by32 opinions
- Kennedy v. CrouchCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
- Altman v. Standard Refrig. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- J. Dwight Baird v. Aluminum Seal Company, Inc., an Indiana CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- Jenkins v. GilliganSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Hornin v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.