Watkins v. Price Mercantile Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watkins v. Price Mercantile Co.

164 S.E. 231, 45 Ga. App. 272, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 281

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1932

Docket21798

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 231 (Watkins v. Price Mercantile Co.) 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

Watkins v. Price Mercantile Co., 164 S.E. 231, 45 Ga. App. 272, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 281 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. In a suit for malicious use of legal process, where the answer admitted an allegation of the petition that the process was sued out maliciously and without probable cause, but the answer was later amended by striking the admission and inserting in lieu thereof a denial of the allegation, the admission, though introduced as evidence for the plaintiff, was not conclusive, and could be explained or disproved by the defendant. Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Guilford, 114 Ga. 627 (40 S. E. 794); Mims v. Jones, 135 Ga. 541, 544 (69 S. E. 824) ; McConnell v. Gregory, 146 Ga. 475 (91 S. E. 550).

[273]*273Decided May 11, 1932. Hattie B. Bell, Grady Gillon, for plaintiff in error. James L. Wimberly, West & West, contra.

2. The evidence demanded the inference that the defendant acted upon probable cause in suing out and prosecuting the search warrant, and the trial court therefore properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in the suit for damages. Compare Sirmans v. Peterson, 42 Ga. App. 707 (157 S. E. 341).

3. The superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the plaintiff’s petition for the writ of certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. In a suit for malicious use of legal process, where the answer admitted an allegation of the petition that the process was sued out maliciously and without probable cause, but the answer was later amended by striking the admission and inserting in lieu thereof a denial of the allegation, the admission, though introduced as evidence for the plaintiff, was not conclusive, and could be explained or disproved by the defendant. Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Guilford, 114 Ga. 627 (40 S. E. 794); Mims v. Jones, 135 Ga. 541, 544 (69 S. E. 824) ; McConnell v. Gregory, 146 Ga. 475 (91 S. E. 550).

[273]*273Decided May 11, 1932. Hattie B. Bell, Grady Gillon, for plaintiff in error. James L. Wimberly, West & West, contra.

2. The evidence demanded the inference that the defendant acted upon probable cause in suing out and prosecuting the search warrant, and the trial court therefore properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in the suit for damages. Compare Sirmans v. Peterson, 42 Ga. App. 707 (157 S. E. 341).

3. The superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the plaintiff’s petition for the writ of certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 231, 45 Ga. App. 272, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-price-mercantile-co-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack