Rice v. Lewis
This text of 120 S.E.2d 615 (Rice v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Where, as in the case sub judice, the petition alleges that the defendant caused a distress warrant to issue against the plaintiff maliciously and without probable [8]*8cause, but fails to allege that the distress-warrant proceedings terminated favorably to the plaintiff, the petition set forth no cause of action in trespass (Sledge v. McLaren, 29 Ga. 74; Parter v. Johnson, 96 Ga. 148, 23 SE 123; Fulton Grocery Co. v. Maddox, 111 Ga. 260, 36 SE 647), or for malicious use of process. Sparrow v. Weld, 177 Ga. 134 (169 SE 487). There is a clear distinction between the seizure of property under a valid process, as in this case, and the seizure of property of a person under process which is invalid or void upon its face, or where no process has ever issued against him.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
120 S.E.2d 615, 217 Ga. 7, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-lewis-ga-1961.