Hatjie v. Hare
This text of 68 Vt. 247 (Hatjie v. Hare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an action on the case for malicious prosecution. To maintain it, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege and prove as an independent fact, malice on the part of the defendant in bringing his action against the plaintiff. Dishonesty and bad faith on the part of the defendant must be established. Therefore the question whether there was malice in the mind of the defendant in the institution of his suit, was a distinct issue on trial, to be proven by the plaintiff. Barron v. Mason, 31 Vt. 189; Driggs v. Burton, 44 Vt. 124; Carleton v. Taylor, 50 Vt. 220. The plaintiff’s evidence did not tend to prove such malice, and the county court, therefore, did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 Vt. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatjie-v-hare-vt-1896.