Moehring v. Hall
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. George McCormick. This was an action for damages for malicious prosecution.
Read the full summary
Error from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. George McCormick. This was an action for damages for malicious prosecution. The petition of plaintiff, James Hall, alleged that defendant, in May, 1885, complained to the grand jury of Guadalupe county and accused defendant in error of the crime of burglary and theft; that defendant in error was an honest man; that plaintiff in error maliciously contrived to injure defendant's character and to put him to expense and trouble; that he was tried by a jury and acquitted; that defendant in error expended much time and money in vindicating himself,…
1Opinion of the Court
Willie, Chief Justice.
“The general allegation of damages will suffice to let in proof, and to warrant recovery of all such damages as naturally and necessarily result from the wrongful act complained of; the law implies such damages, that is, damages of that sort, and proof only is necessary to show their extent and amount.” Railway Company v Curry, 64 Tex. 85. Theinjuries alleged to have been received by Hall, for which he claimed damages, were the natural and proximate consequences of the prosecution instituted against him by Moehring. The allegations of the petition were, therefore,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- T. & P. R'y Co. v. CurryTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- A. H. Belo & Co. v. WrenTexas Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mellor v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Sutherland v. KirklandCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. FossettTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Wetz v. WetzCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1902
- Leonard v. TorranceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.