Terry v. . Davis

18 S.E. 943, 114 N.C. 31
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 18 S.E. 943 (Terry v. . Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Terry v. . Davis, 18 S.E. 943, 114 N.C. 31 (N.C. 1894).

Opinion

MagNais, J.:

This is substantially the same action which is reported under the caption of Timothy Ely v. John F. Davis, in 111 N. C., 24, being an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Wo then sustained the demurrer upon the ground that there was no allegation in the complaint of want of probable cause, nor statement of facts which, if proved, would establish the want of probable cause in the alleged malicious charge of fraud and false representation.

AYe proceeded further to intimate, in order that the plaintiffs might understand that this litigation ought to cease, our opinion that an action will not lie for malicious prosecution in a civil suit, unless there was an arrest of the person or seizure of property, as in attachment proceedings at law, or their equivalent in equity, or in proceedings in bankruptcy or like cases where there was some special damage resulting from the action and which would not necessarily result in all cases of the like kind. We affirmed *33 tlie judgment below dismissing tlie action. Tlie plaintiffs seem to have immediately begun an action against the same defendants or their personal representatives. It is here again upon substantially tlie same complaint, with the addition of the allegation of want of probable cause. We have listened with attention to the argument of counsel and have examined the authorities presented by him, and are still of the opinion that the action will not lie, for the reasons fully stated in the opinion above referred to and which we deem unnecessary to repeat. We need not, therefore, examine the other grounds of demurrer. The judgment of his Honor below sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action is Affirmed.

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

Related

Brown v. Guaranty Estates Corp.
80 S.E.2d 645 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Swain v. American Surety Co.
171 S.E. 217 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Nassif v. . Goodman
166 S.E. 308 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Jerome v. . Shaw
90 S.E. 764 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Carpenter, Baggott & Co. v. Hanes
83 S.E. 577 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Railroad Co. v. Hardware Co.
138 N.C. 174 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Abbott v. Thorne
65 L.R.A. 826 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Wade v. National Bank of Commerce of Tacoma
114 F. 377 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington, 1902)
Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co.
51 N.E. 569 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1898)
Kolka v. Jones
71 N.W. 558 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 S.E. 943, 114 N.C. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-v-davis-nc-1894.