Johnson v. Gordon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. Gordon

106 S.E. 615, 26 Ga. App. 526, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 512

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1921

Docket11873

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 615 (Johnson v. Gordon) 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

Johnson v. Gordon, 106 S.E. 615, 26 Ga. App. 526, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. This is a suit to recover damages upon two counts: (1) for “malicious abuse of legal process,” and (2) for “malicious use of legal process.” To support a recovery on the first count the evidence must show the wilful misapplication or perversion of a lawful process in order to obtain an object which such a process is not intended by law to effect. To support a recovery on the second count the evidence must show: (a) that the use of the lawful process was malicious; (5) that it was without probable cause; (c) that it had terminated in the defendant’s favor before he filed his suit for damages. Clement v. Orr, 4 Ga. App. 117 (60 S. E. 1017) ; McElreath v. Gross, 23 Ga. App. 287 (98 S. E. 190).

2. The undisputed evidence showing that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages on either theory embraced in the two counts of the petition, the direction of a verdict for the defendant was demanded. It is immaterial that in the direction of a verdict for the defendant, demanded by the evidence, the court gave an unsound reason for the direction.

Judgment afjb-med.

Jenkins, P. J., a/nd Stephens, J., eonew.

Action for damages; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. September 10, 1920.

Hunter & Daly, for plaintiff. Robert G. Plunkett, for defendant.

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

Hill, J.

1. This is a suit to recover damages upon two counts: (1) for “malicious abuse of legal process,” and (2) for “malicious use of legal process.” To support a recovery on the first count the evidence must show the wilful misapplication or perversion of a lawful process in order to obtain an object which such a process is not intended by law to effect. To support a recovery on the second count the evidence must show: (a) that the use of the lawful process was malicious; (5) that it was without probable cause; (c) that it had terminated in the defendant’s favor before he filed his suit for damages. Clement v. Orr, 4 Ga. App. 117 (60 S. E. 1017) ; McElreath v. Gross, 23 Ga. App. 287 (98 S. E. 190).

2. The undisputed evidence showing that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages on either theory embraced in the two counts of the petition, the direction of a verdict for the defendant was demanded. It is immaterial that in the direction of a verdict for the defendant, demanded by the evidence, the court gave an unsound reason for the direction.

Judgment afjb-med.

Jenkins, P. J., a/nd Stephens, J., eonew.

Action for damages; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. September 10, 1920.

Hunter & Daly, for plaintiff. Robert G. Plunkett, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 615, 26 Ga. App. 526, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-gordon-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack