Varner v. Watkins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Varner v. Watkins

121 S.E. 524, 31 Ga. App. 578, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 71

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 8, 1924

Docket14652

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 524 (Varner v. Watkins) 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

Varner v. Watkins, 121 S.E. 524, 31 Ga. App. 578, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 71 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

This being a suit by the vendee of personalty against the vendor, for a malicious prosecution, in which the petition alleges that the attorneys at law employed by the defendant to “force this petitioner to pay to [the defendant] $100.00” (which was an alleged balance due for the purchase-money which the plaintiff contends had been paid) caused another person, to whom the plaintiff had sold the personalty, to institute a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff, based upon the transaction of sale by the plaintiff to such other person, and it not appearing anywhere from the petition that the person instituting the criminal proceeding acted at the instigation of the defendant, or otherwise as his agent, and it not appearing that the attorneys for the defendant, in causing such person to institute the criminal prosecution, had any authority whatsoever from the defendant to force the collection of the alleged indebtedness by instigating a criminal prosecution, the petition set out no cause of action against the defendant and was properly dismissed on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

This being a suit by the vendee of personalty against the vendor, for a malicious prosecution, in which the petition alleges that the attorneys at law employed by the defendant to “force this petitioner to pay to [the defendant] $100.00” (which was an alleged balance due for the purchase-money which the plaintiff contends had been paid) caused another person, to whom the plaintiff had sold the personalty, to institute a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff, based upon the transaction of sale by the plaintiff to such other person, and it not appearing anywhere from the petition that the person instituting the criminal proceeding acted at the instigation of the defendant, or otherwise as his agent, and it not appearing that the attorneys for the defendant, in causing such person to institute the criminal prosecution, had any authority whatsoever from the defendant to force the collection of the alleged indebtedness by instigating a criminal prosecution, the petition set out no cause of action against the defendant and was properly dismissed on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 524, 31 Ga. App. 578, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varner-v-watkins-gactapp-1924.