Pickard v. Bridges

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pickard v. Bridges

67 S.E. 117, 7 Ga. App. 463, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 351

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 22, 1910

Docket2223

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 67 S.E. 117 (Pickard v. Bridges) 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

Pickard v. Bridges, 67 S.E. 117, 7 Ga. App. 463, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 351 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

In a petition to recover damages for malicious prosecution, it was alleged, that the plaintiff was arrested on a warrant sworn out by the defendant, charging him with the offense of cheating and swindling, and was taken before a magistrate, who, after an investigation, dismissed the warrant and discharged him. By amendment it was alleged that since the dismissal of the warrant and the discharge of the plaintiff, and before the filing of the suit for malicious prosecution, a term1 of the superior court of the county, with a grand jury empanelled, had convened and adjourned, without any further prosecution of the crim.inal charge. Held: These allegations were sufficient to show that the prosecution had ended before the filing of the suit for damages, and, when proved as laid, it was error to grant a nonsuit on the ground that the evidence failed to show that the prosecution was ended before the suit for malicious prosecution was commenced. Hartshorn v. Smith, 104 Ga. 237 (30 S. E. 666) ; Page v. Citizens’ Banking Co., 111 Ga. 85 (36 S. E. 418, 51 L. R. A. 463, 78 Am. St. R. 144) ; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 22 Ga. 237. Judgment reversed.

Action, for malicious prosecution; from city court of Oglethorpe —Judge Greer. September 14, 1909.

Argued December 20, 1909. Decided February 22, 1910. J ere M. Moore, for plaintiff. Ilixon & Greer, for defendant.

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

Hill, C. J.

In a petition to recover damages for malicious prosecution, it was alleged, that the plaintiff was arrested on a warrant sworn out by the defendant, charging him with the offense of cheating and swindling, and was taken before a magistrate, who, after an investigation, dismissed the warrant and discharged him. By amendment it was alleged that since the dismissal of the warrant and the discharge of the plaintiff, and before the filing of the suit for malicious prosecution, a term1 of the superior court of the county, with a grand jury empanelled, had convened and adjourned, without any further prosecution of the crim.inal charge. Held: These allegations were sufficient to show that the prosecution had ended before the filing of the suit for damages, and, when proved as laid, it was error to grant a nonsuit on the ground that the evidence failed to show that the prosecution was ended before the suit for malicious prosecution was commenced. Hartshorn v. Smith, 104 Ga. 237 (30 S. E. 666) ; Page v. Citizens’ Banking Co., 111 Ga. 85 (36 S. E. 418, 51 L. R. A. 463, 78 Am. St. R. 144) ; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 22 Ga. 237. Judgment reversed.

Action, for malicious prosecution; from city court of Oglethorpe —Judge Greer. September 14, 1909.

Argued December 20, 1909. Decided February 22, 1910. J ere M. Moore, for plaintiff. Ilixon & Greer, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 117, 7 Ga. App. 463, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickard-v-bridges-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack