Huntington v. Gault
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo. (Buck, J.) Case lor malicious prosecution. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. Defendant’s second request should have been given.
Read the full summary
Error to Kalamazoo. (Buck, J.) Case lor malicious prosecution. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. Defendant’s second request should have been given. If the plaintiff failed to show that there was no probable cause for making the complaint, his action must fail, even if defendant acted maliciously in making it; citing Hamilton v. Smith, 39 Mich. 222; Jacks v. Stimpson, 13 Ill. 703; Israel v. Brooks, 23 Id. 575. 2. A non-pros is not prima facie evidence of a want of probable cause; citing Roberts v. Bayles, 1 Sandf. 47; nor is a judgment of acquittal; citing Scott…
1Opinion of the CourtOhamplin, C. J.
Huntington brought an action on the case against Gault for malicious prosecution, and recovered a verdict and judgment for $1,650.
The declaration avers, and so it was proved upon the trial, that Gault made complaint in writing before William W. Peck, the recorder of the city of Kalamazoo, as follows:
“ State oe Michigan, ) gg “ Kalamazoo county, J
“In Recorder’s Court for the City of Kalamazoo.
“The complaint and examination on oath and in writing of Elias H. Gault, taken and made before me, William W. Peck, recorder and judge of the recorder’s court for the city of Kalamazoo, in said county,…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Hicks v. BrantleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Sebastian v. CheneyTexas Supreme Court · 1894
- Schneider v. ShepherdMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Diers v. MallonNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Weiden v. WeidenMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.