Seamans v. Hoge

31 S.E. 156, 105 Ga. 159, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 469
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 23, 1898·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

In order for a -plaintiff to recover in an action for malicious prosecution, the burden is on him to show that the prosecution was instituted without probable cause. The want of probable cause is the-gravamen of the action. Plaintiff may show express malice on the part of the prosecutor, and [163]*163still, if lie fail to show that the prosecutor acted without probable cause, he can not recover. The prosecutor in a criminal ■case may have improper motives, may have hatred and malice towards the accused, and yet, if he have probable cause for the prosecution, damages can not be recovered against him. The ■prosecutor need not be fully satisfied of the truth of the charge when he institutes the prosecution; all that is necessary is that he should have probable cause for its institution. If he have probable cause, it is sufficient to relieve" him" of damages in an .action against him for instituting the prosecution. Rigden v. Jordan & Stewart, 81 Ga. 668; Marable v. Mayer, 78 Ga. 710; Joiner v. Ocean Steamship Co., 86 Ga. 238.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Seamans v. Hoge, 31 S.E. 156, 105 Ga. 159, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 469 (Ga. 1898).

31 S.E. 156 (Seamans v. Hoge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

K Mart Corp. v. Griffin
375 S.E.2d 257 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Smith v. Ragan
230 S.E.2d 89 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Bailey v. Century Finance Company
169 S.E.2d 173 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Tanner-Brice Co. v. Barrs
190 S.E. 676 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Vandhitch v. Alverson
183 S.E. 105 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
South Georgia Grocery Co. v. Banks
182 S.E. 61 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Darnell v. Shirley
122 S.E. 252 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Thornton v. Story
101 S.E. 309 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)