Coker v. Tate

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Coker v. Tate

151 S.E. 535, 40 Ga. App. 801, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 704

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 24, 1930

Docket19850

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 S.E. 535 (Coker v. Tate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coker v. Tate, 151 S.E. 535, 40 Ga. App. 801, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Tlie gist of an action for an alleged malicious criminal prosecution is the carrying on of such prosecution maliciously and without probable cause, and there can be no recovery unless both of these elements are proved. Civil Code (1910), § 4439; Darnell v. Shirley, 31 Ga. App. 764 (122 S. E. 252).

2. In the instant ease the suit was based upon a previous prosecution for disposing of mortgaged property. It appeared, without dispute, that the plaintiff had actually executed to the defendant a mortgage on “my crops, of all kinds now growing or to be grown on” certain described land “this year.” It further appeared, from the undisputed testimony of the plaintiff himself, that he had harvested a crop of oats from the [802]*802land in question, after the execution of the mortgage, and had disposed of the oats otherwise than by applying the proceeds to the mortgage. Consequently, the defendant had, as a matter of law, probable cause for instituting the criminal proceeding, and, whether such proceeding was instituted maliciously or not, there could be no recovery against him for damages on account thereof. The fact that the plaintiff may not have intended to execute to the defendant a mortgage on his crops, or may not have known that he had done so, could not operate to change the rule, in view of his testimony that he did sign the paper in question, and in the entire absence of any testimony going to show that the defendant had made any misrepresentation to the plaintiff to induce him to execute the paper, or that the defendant knew the inability of the plaintiff to read the paper and understand its contents.

Decided January 24, 1930. Maddox, Matthews & Owens, for plaintiff in error. Porter & Mebane, contra.

3. Under the foregoing rulings, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was not authorized by the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Tlie gist of an action for an alleged malicious criminal prosecution is the carrying on of such prosecution maliciously and without probable cause, and there can be no recovery unless both of these elements are proved. Civil Code (1910), § 4439; Darnell v. Shirley, 31 Ga. App. 764 (122 S. E. 252).

2. In the instant ease the suit was based upon a previous prosecution for disposing of mortgaged property. It appeared, without dispute, that the plaintiff had actually executed to the defendant a mortgage on “my crops, of all kinds now growing or to be grown on” certain described land “this year.” It further appeared, from the undisputed testimony of the plaintiff himself, that he had harvested a crop of oats from the [802]*802land in question, after the execution of the mortgage, and had disposed of the oats otherwise than by applying the proceeds to the mortgage. Consequently, the defendant had, as a matter of law, probable cause for instituting the criminal proceeding, and, whether such proceeding was instituted maliciously or not, there could be no recovery against him for damages on account thereof. The fact that the plaintiff may not have intended to execute to the defendant a mortgage on his crops, or may not have known that he had done so, could not operate to change the rule, in view of his testimony that he did sign the paper in question, and in the entire absence of any testimony going to show that the defendant had made any misrepresentation to the plaintiff to induce him to execute the paper, or that the defendant knew the inability of the plaintiff to read the paper and understand its contents.

Decided January 24, 1930. Maddox, Matthews & Owens, for plaintiff in error. Porter & Mebane, contra.

3. Under the foregoing rulings, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was not authorized by the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 S.E. 535, 40 Ga. App. 801, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coker-v-tate-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack