Giroux v. Goldman

Appellate Court of Illinois

Giroux v. Goldman

208 Ill. App. 261

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 30, 1917

DocketGen. No. 23,151

StatusPublished

This text of 208 Ill. App. 261 (Giroux v. Goldman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giroux v. Goldman, 208 Ill. App. 261 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Malicious prosecution, § 76*—when malice not shown. In an action for malicious prosecution, evidence held insufficient to show malice on the part of defendant. 2. Malicious prosecution, § 20*—when good faith is sufficient defense. Good faith in swearing out the warrant for plaintiff’s arrest is a sufficient defense to an action for malicious prosecution. 3. Malicious prosecution, § 74*—when evidence is insufficient to show caution in swearing out warrant. In an action to recover for malicious prosecution, evidence held to show that, in swearing out a warrant for plaintiff’s arrest, defendant did not act as a reasonably cautious person would have acted in the circumstances. 4. Malicious prosecution, jj 98*—when verdict is excessive. In an action to recover for malicious prosecution, a verdict for plaintiff for $300 held excessive and remittitur of $150 required as condition of affirmance.

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

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Malicious prosecution, § 76*—when malice not shown. In an action for malicious prosecution, evidence held insufficient to show malice on the part of defendant. 2. Malicious prosecution, § 20*—when good faith is sufficient defense. Good faith in swearing out the warrant for plaintiff’s arrest is a sufficient defense to an action for malicious prosecution. 3. Malicious prosecution, § 74*—when evidence is insufficient to show caution in swearing out warrant. In an action to recover for malicious prosecution, evidence held to show that, in swearing out a warrant for plaintiff’s arrest, defendant did not act as a reasonably cautious person would have acted in the circumstances. 4. Malicious prosecution, jj 98*—when verdict is excessive. In an action to recover for malicious prosecution, a verdict for plaintiff for $300 held excessive and remittitur of $150 required as condition of affirmance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 Ill. App. 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giroux-v-goldman-illappct-1917.