Imágenes de páginas

(2) The intent to deceive, etc. Massachusetts.-Holst v. Stewart, 154 Mass., 445 ; S. c. 28 N. E. Rep., 574. (Demurrer to declaration sustained on the ground that it did not allege that the representations were fraudulent as well as false.) Brady v. Finn, 162 Mass., 260; s. C. 38 N. E. Rep., 506. (A declaration, alleging that defendant knowingly made false representations of material facts by which plaintiff was induced to make an exchange of real estate, is sufficient since the jury may infer a fraudulent intent.) Missouri.-Fenwick v. Bowling, 50 Mo. App., 516. (Petition merely averring that the representations are untrue, without charging that they were knowingly and fraudulently made, is bad.) Redpath v. Lawrence, 42 Mo. App., 101. (Held, that petition did not state a cause of action, where it did not allege defendant's intent to deceive, and contained only a general allegation of fraud.) New York.-Thomas v. Snyder, 77 Hun, 365 ; s. C. 60 State Rep., 415; 28 N. Y. Supp., 877. (Complaint cannot be regarded as setting forth a cause of action for false representations, which does not allege that defendants knew the representations to be false.) Steinam v. Bell, 7 Misc., 318; S. c. 57 N. Y. St. Rep., 462; 27 N. Y. Supp., 905. (Complaint alleging, that defendant warranted and falsely represented a mare to be sound; that relying thereon plaintiff purchased the mare; that the mare was unsound and known to defendant to be so; and that in consequence of the animal's condition plaintiff was put to great expense, etc.,-states a cause of action for fraud, and not on contract.) American Nat. Bank v. Grace, 67 Hun, 432 ; s. c. 51 State Rep., 308 ; 22 N. Y. Supp., 121. (Motion to make more definite denied, where complaint, after fully setting forth the character of the fraud and deceit and false representations, alleged that defendant “was informed and knew of the facts and circumstances sufficient to charge him with knowledge of the falsity thereof.") Oregon.-Britt v. Marks, 20 Ore., 223 ; s. c. 25 Pac. Rep., 636. (Complaint must allege that defendant knew the representations relied on by plaintiff were untrue, and that they were made with the intent to defraud the plaintiff.) Schoellhamer v. Rometsch, Oregon, 1894, 38 Pac. Rep., 344. (Defendant's intent to deceive may be implied from an allegation, that he made specified representations, which he knew to be false, for the purpose of inducing, and which did induce, the plaintiff to purchase property to her damage.) Pennsylvania.-Bradley v. Potts, 155 Pa., 418 ; s. c. 26 Atl. Rep., 734. (It is not necessary that the fraud should be alleged in express terms, if the facts alleged are sufficient to support an inference of fraud.) United States. -Shippen v. Bowen, 48 Fed. Rep., 659. (De. fendant's knowledge of the falsity of the representations must be alleged and proved.) Barnes v. Union Pac. R. Co., 54 Fed. Rep., 87, C. C. A., 1893. (In an action for false representations as to deiendant's title to land, complaint need not allege that, at the time of making the representations, defendant knew them to be false, where it appears that plaintiff had no knowledge of the title and relied wholly on defendant's statements.)

[ocr errors]

(3) Plaintiff's reliance on defendant's representations. Georgia.-Cheney v. Powell, 88 Ga., 629 ; s. c. 15 S. E. Rep., 750. (Demurrer overruled, though complaint did not expressly allege that plaintiff was deceived by thc fraudulent representations, where such fact was plainly implied by the facts alleged.) Indiana.-Lincoln v. Ragsdale, Indiana Appeals, 1894, 37 N. E. Rep., 25. (Demurrer to a complaint for fraudulent representations sustained, where it did not allege that plaintiff was ignorant of the falsity thereof, and that he was misled thereby.) Massachusetts.—Windram v. French, 157 Mass., 547; s. C. 24 N. E. Rep., 914. (A declaration, alleging that plaintiff indorsed a note relying on the validity of specified certificate of stock which had been illegally issued by defendants, but not alleging that he relied upon defendant's representations that the stock was valid, arising from their signing the certificate as officers-is sufficient as against a demurrer not specifically pointing out the defect; especially, where it was also alleged, that the certificate was issued by defendants to enable the person named in it to raise money.) Il'isconsin.-Sheldon v. Davidson, 85 Wis., 138; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep., 161. (In an action for false representations that a barn on the premises was included in the lease which plaintiff was induced to make, complaint held demurrable, where it alleged, that plaintiff made inquiries as to defendant's ownersbip of the barn, but did not allege the result of the inquiries, nor that plaintiff was ignorant of the fact that defendant did not own the building.)

(4) Resulting damage, etc. California.—London, etc., Ins. Co. v. Liebes, 105 Cal., 203 ; s. c. 38 Pac. Rep., 691. (Demurrer to complaint sustained on the ground that it did not show that plaintiff was damaged by defendant's alleged false representations.) Nebraska.-Gilcrest v. Nantker, Nebraska, 1894, 60 N. W. Rep., 906. (Petition is fatally defective, if it fails to allege what damage was sustained by plaintiff by reason of the alleged false representations.) New York.–Wilson v. Ryder, 10 N. Y. Supp., 233. (In an action of procuring goods by defendant's false representations that he owned property of a specified value free and clear of liabilities, complaint dismissed for sailing to allege that plaintiff was damaged by such misrepresentation.) N. Y. Land Imp. Co. v. Chapman, 118 N. Y., 288; s. c. 23 N. E. Rep., 187. (Complaint held to state a good cause of action, which alleged, in effect, that plaintiff had a right to dispossess a firm of which defendant was a member for nonpayment of rent, but that upon defendant's representation that the firm was solvent, which defendant knew to be false, plaintiff allowed the firm to remain, and refused to rent to others; and that in consequence of the firm's insolvency, plaintiff lost rent.) Whitner v. Perhacs, 25 Abb. N. C., 130 ; s. C. 11 N. Y. Supp., 756. (A complaint for damages for false representations, in inducing plaintiff to purchase stock in a certain corporation, and to render services to it, states but a single cause of action having two items of damage.)



[Principal Case, p. 241, this Vol.] Alabama.-Rich v. McInnery, Alabama, 1894, 15 So. Rep., 663. (Under the Alabama Code, a complaint substantially in the following form is sufficient: “The plaintiff claims of the defendant dollars as damages for maliciously and without probable cause therefor, arresting and imprisoning this plaintiff (or, causing this plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned] on the charge of larceny (or, other felony as the case may be) for days, viz., on the day of —.) California.—Going v. Dinwiddie, 86 Cal., 633 ; s. c. 25 Pac. Rep., 129. (A complaint, alleging that defendant, a justice of the peace, imprisoned plaintiff “unlawfully and with force and without probable cause,” on a pretended charge of contempt of court for disobedience to a writ of restitution, “ wrongfully and unlawfully” issued by him, held, insufficient in not alleging facts to show that defendant acted in excess of his powers as justice.) Illinois.-Sundmacker v. Block, 39 Ill. App., 553. (Where the arrest is alleged to have been made by a private person without process, it is not necessary to allege that the arrest was made without reasonable or probable cause.) Indiana.Sanford Tool & F. Co. v. Mullen, 1 Ind. App., 204; s. c. 27 N. E. Rep , 448. (It is not error to allow an amendment of complaint to conform it to evidence, when the only change relates to the crime on which the alleged imprisonment was based.) Mississippi.-Anderson v. Beck, 64 Miss., 113; s. c. 8 So. Rep., 167. (Complaint held not demurrable, which alleged that defendant, a Sheriff, by virtue of his office, imprisoned plaintiff for more than 30 days on a pretended warrant for his arrest, on a false and fraudulent charge; since such a detention under a warrant would be illegal without a mittimus.) New York.-Cunningham 0. East River Electric Light Co., 42 State Rep., 212 ; s. c. 17 N. Y. Supp., 372. (The unlawfulness of the arrest must be alleged. It is not sufficient merely to allege that it was maliciously procured.) Oregon.-Nemitz o. Conrad, 22 Ore., 164 ; s. c. 29 Pac. Rep., 548. (Plaintiff cannot recover by showing that the imprisonment was unlawful because of a refusal to receive bail on a law. ful arrest, where such facts are not pleaded.) Texas.-Landrum v. Wells, Texas Civ. App., 1894, 26 S. W. Rep., 1001. (Complaint held to be bad on special demurrer, which asked damages for the interruption of plaintiff's business, without stating what his business was.) Landrum 0. Wells, supra. (In action against a constable and his bondsmen, the special demurrer of the bondsmen was sustained to a petition, alleging that the arrest was made under “color of office," but not setting out the process, or authority, under which the arrest was made.) Wisconsin.-King v. Johnston (Weed), 81 Wis., 578; s. c. 51 N. W. Rep., 1011. (Complaint held to be demurrable, which alleged that the arrrest was made under a warrant, but failed to allege facts showing that it was extrajudicial, or illegal.)



[Principal Case, p. 244, this Vol.] (1) Malice, want of probable cause, etc. (2) Termination of the malicious proceedings in plaintiff's faror. (3) Damages, etc.

(1) Malice, want of probable cause, etc. Georgia.Horn v. Sims, 92 Ga., 421 ; s. C. 17 S. E. Rep., 670. (The ending of the prosecution is sufficiently alleged by an allegation that the grand jury had made a return of no bill upon a bill of indictment, and expressed in their finding that the prosecution was malicious.) Hyfield v. Bass Furnace Co., 89 Ga., 827; s. c. 15 S. E. Rep., 752. (Demurrer to a declaration sustained which merely alleged that defendant was indebted to plaintiff for expenses incurred in defense of a suit brought by defendant against him without cause, a copy of which account is hereto attached and made a part of the petition; there being no description of the suit referred to, no allegation that it was maliciously brought, nor that it had terminated in plaintiff's favor.) Indiana.—Darnell v. Sallee, 7 Ind. App., 581 ; s. c. 34 N. E. Rep., 1020. (Complaint held not to show probable cause for the prosecution by alleging that plaintiff was bound over by the committing magistrate to await the action of the grand jury and that on the failure of the jury to indict he was discharged by order of the court.) Swindell v. Houck, 2 Ind. App., 519; s. c. 28 N. E. Rep., 736. (A complaint alleging that the action was commenced by affidavit and capius made maliciously and without probable cause, need not also allege that the writ upon which the arrest was made was procured maliciously and without probable cause.) Cottrell v. Cottrell, 126 Ind., 181 ; s. c. 25 X. E. Rep., 925. (As against demurrer, complaint held sufficient, which alleged that defendant maliciously and without probable cause procured plaintiff to be arrested on a warrant, ard brought before a justice of the peace upon a charge of kidnapping, and that the plaintiff was acquitted and discharged by such justice.) Kentucky.-Duncan v. Griswold, 92 kr., 546 ; s. c. 18 S. W. Rep., 354. (In an action for the malicious prosecution of a civil proceeding, whereby a cloud is cast on plaintiff's title to land, the petition must contain an averment of want of probable cause.) Vinnesota.-O'Neill v. Johnson, 53 Minn., 439; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep., 601. (An action will lie for the malicious prosecution of a civil action, and a complaint in such an action is sufficient which alleges that defendant's action against plaintiff was instigated maliciously and without probable cause, and that plaintiff was not indebted to defendant in any sum, which defendant well knew; also the termination of the action and the plaintiff's damage.) Missouri.- Witascheck v. Glass, 46 Mo. App., 209. (In an action for malicious attachment, petition is fatally defective, if it fails to allege the want of probable cause.) Nebraska.Obernalte 1. Johnson, 36 Neb., 772; s. c. 15 N. W. Rep., 220. (Held, that it was error not tu grant a motion to strike out from petition a special finding of the jury in the criminal action, “that the complaint was made without probable cause.") North Carolina.-Ely v. Davis, 111 N. C., 24; s. c. 15 S. E. Rep., 878. (Complaint dismissed which failed to allege the want of probable cause, or facts from which it could be inferred.) Davis v. Terry, 114 N. C., 27; s. c. 18 S. E. Rep., 947. (A counterclaim for the malicious prosecution of a prior action, which fails to allege facts showing want of probable cause in instituting the action is bad.) Rhode Island.-Hobbs r". Ray, 18 R. I., — ; s. c. 25 Atl. Rep., 694. (Trespass on the case is the proper form of action for malicious prosecution.) Washington.-Jones v. Jenkins, 3 Wash., 17; s. c. 27 Pac. Rep., 1022. (Where a complaint alleged in one paragraph that defendants procured plaintiff's arrest on a ** false charge," stating it, and in another paragraph that in procuring such arrest and prosecution they acted “maliciously and without probable cause," held, that the complaint sufficiently alleged malice, want of probable cause, and the falsity of defcndant's charge.)

(2) Termination of the malicious proceedings in plaintiff's favor. Varyland.-Clements v. McCracken, Maryland, 1890, 20 Atl. Rep., 184. (Demurrer sustained to a declaration which alleged that defendant falsely and maliciously and without probable cause sued plaintiff upon a bond which he knew to have been forged, but not avering that such suit terminated in a judgment defeating a recovery on the bond.) Michigan.Peterson v. Toner, 80 Mich., 350 ; s. c. 45 N. W. Rep., 346. (Held, that plaintiff need only prove that he was acquitted by the verdict of a jury and discharged out of custody, and that other matters alleged in relation thereto were to be regarded as mere recitals.) Missouri.—Boogher r. Hough, 99 Mo., 183 ; s. c. 12 S. W. Rep., 524. (Where petitioner showed that plaintiff was convicted and that his conviction was reversed upon appeal, held, that the presumption that the prosecution was instituted upon probable cause was sufficiently rebutted by an allegation that the conviction was procured by fraud in depriving plaintiff of the testimony of his principal witness by joining him as co-indictee; and that it was not necessary to also allege that plaintiff was thereby prevented from making a defense.) Freymark v McKinney Bread Co., 55 Mo. App., 435. (In an action for malicious attachment, petition must either allege a termination of the proceeding in plaintiff's favor, or that it has terminated against him, and that he had no opportunity to defend against it.) New York.Scholl v. Schnebel, 8 N. Y. Supp., 85,5; 29 State Rep., 676. (An allegation that the magistrate did acquit plaintiff of a charge of forgery, held sufficient without amendment, as the magistrate could only take an examination on such a charge, and a discharge, whether after testimony was given or without testimony, was an acquittal.) North Carolina.-Sneeden v. Harris, 109 N. C., 349 ; s. c. 13 S. E. Rep., 920. (When an action is for the malicious abuse of legal process, in order to compel a party to do a collateral thing or to acomplish an ulterior purpose, it is not necessary to allege that the process improperly employed is at an end.) Rhode Island.

- Collins v. Campbell, Rhode Island, 31 Atl. Rep., 832. (Demurrer to complaint sustained which failed to state positively that the malicious

« AnteriorContinuar »