malicious prosecution. 191 Malicious prosecution was not a trespass, 192 but gave rise to an action on the case, in which damage was the gist of the action. It is convenient to postpone the distinction between it and false imprisonment and malicious abuse of process. It is, as has been seen, regarded as defamatory publication through courts of justice. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff

to show that each of the essential elements of the wrong exist.193 The defendant's case, therefore, is a negative one. Thus, justification and matter mitigating damage are denials of the plaintiff's case,1o and do not operate by way of confession and avoidance. This will be made clear by a separate consideration of the constituent elements as enumerated.

SAME THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.

197. To constitute malicious prosecution, there must have been an original judicial proceeding. The tendency of the American courts is to recognize as a basis for malicious prosecution either a civil or criminal original proceeding even though there may have been no interference with the person or property.

The original proceeding must have been judicial. If it is extrajudicial, the remedy is trespass.195 Therefore, where a man is arrested on perfect legal process, though maliciously, without probable cause, and is acquitted, he cannot sue in trespass, for false im

191 Post, p. 637.

192 "In no case has he who instituted a groundless proceeding been held liable as a trespasser." Lovier v. Gilpin, 6 Dana (Ky.) 321–328; Daniels v. Feilding, 16 Mees. & W. 200; Barber v. Rollinson, 1 Cromp. & M. 330; Cassier v. Fales, 139 Mass. 461, 1 N. E. 922. Et vide Legallee v. Blaisdell, 134 Mass. 473; Sheldon v. Carpenter, 4 N. Y. 579; De Medina v. Grove, 10 Q. B. 152-170.

193 2 Greenl. Ev. § 449; Barton v. Kavanaugh, 12 La. Ann. 332; Mitchell v. Jenkins, 5 Barn. & Adol. 588; Whalley v. Pepper, 7 Car. & P. 506; Walker v. Cruikshank, 2 Hill, 297; Melvin v. Chancy (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 241; Barber v. Scott (Iowa) 60 N. W. 497; Welsh v. Cheek (N. C.) 20 S. E. 460. Want of probable cause and malice, Womack v. Fudikar, 47 La. Ann, 33, 16 South. 645.

194 2 Greenl. Ev. § 457.

195 Furpin v. Remy, 3 Blackf. 210; Johnstone v. Sutton, 1 Term R. 510.

prisonment, but for malicious prosecution.196 There is not a unanimity of opinion in applying this requirement.197 Malicious prosecution, it seems, will not lie where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter.198 But it is sufficient if the plaintiff was actually brought before the court, although there may have been an insufficient complaint, defect of process, or want of jurisdiction in the magistrate.199 It is both affirmed and denied that, where the complaint in the original proceeding does not set out an offense in the law, the plaintiff can recover in false imprisonment only, and not in malicious prosecution.200 So dismissal by a magistrate on hearing, or his decision that a warrant is void on its face, has been held to entitle to trespass, not case."

201

What Judicial Proceedings are Sufficient.

The authorities are not agreed as to what judicial proceedings are sufficient as a basis for an action of malicious prosecution. In England, "malicious prosecution" has been defined as "the malicious institution against another of criminal, bankruptcy, or liquidation proceedings, without reasonable and probable cause.' On the other hand, Mr. Stephens 208 distinguishes as wrongs more or

"202

196 Murphy v. Martin, 58 Wis. 276, 16 N. W. 603; King v. Johnston, 81 Wis. 579, 51 N. W. 1011; Gelzenleuchter v. Niemeyer, 64 Wis. 321, 25 N. W. 442; Boaz v. Tate, 43 Ind. 60; Colter v. Lower, 35 Ind. 285. Et vide ante, p. 418. note 7. As to false imprisonment under such circumstances, see Carratt v. Morley, 1 Q. B. 18; West v. Smallwood, 3 Mees. & W. 418; Atwood v. Monger, Style, 378.

197 Post, p. 630, "Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment."

198 Bixby v. Brundige, 2 Gray, 129; Whiting v. Johnson, 6 Gray, 246; Painter v. Ives, 4 Neb. 122. Et vide Marshall v. Betner, 17 Ala. 832. But see, contra, Wood v. Sutor, 70 Tex. 343, 8 S. W. 51; Id., 76 Tex. 403, 13 S. W. 321; Stone v. Stevens, 12 Conn. 219.

199 Gibbs v. Ames, 119 Mass. 60-66.

Compare Bell v. Keepers, 37 Kan. 64,

14 Pac. 542; Stocking v. Howard, 73 Mo. 25.

200 Compare Finn v. Frink, 84 Me. 261, 24 Atl. 851, and Lueck v. Heisler, 87 Wis. 644, 58 N. W. 1101, with Krause v. Spiegel, 94 Cal. 370, 29 Pac. 707;

Kramer v. Lott, 50 Pa. St. 495; Schattgen v. Holnback, 149 Ill. 646, 36 N. E. 969.

201 Maher v. Ashmead, 30 Pa. St. 344; Baird v. Householder, 32 Pa. St. 168. Compare Stewart v. Thompson, 51 Pa. St. 158.

202 Fraser, Torts, 121.

203 Steph. Mal. Pros. *p. 19, c. 3.

less closely analogous to malicious prosecution, malicious arrest,204 bringing or conspiring to bring a civil action vexatiously,205 maliciously taking proceedings in bankruptcy,206 maliciously presenting a petition for the winding up of a company,207 maliciously obtaining a search warrant for goods,208 maliciously obtaining a search warrant under Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885,209 and maliciously exhibiting articles of the peace.210

However, it neither accords with modern ideas of pleading and practice, nor of primary rights, to direct much attention to the minute distinction between malicious prosecution and allied wrongs. Indeed, even the lines of demarkation between malicious prosecution, malicious abuse of process, and false imprisonment are none too distinct.211

Malicious prosecution applies, clearly, where the original proceeding was criminal in its nature. Very commonly, the action is brought where the original proceeding was a malicious arrest.212

204 Steph. Mal. Pros. *p. 19, c. 3, citing Scheibel v. Fairbairn [1799] 1 Bos. & P. 388; Gibson v. Chaters [1800] 2 Bos. & P. 129; Page v. Wiple [1803] 3 East, 314; Jennings v. Florence [1857] 2 C. B. (N. S.) 467; Gilding v. Eyre [1862] 10 C. B. (N. S.) 592; Churchill v. Siggers [1854] 3 El. & Bl. 929. And see Bank of British North America v. Strong [1876] 1 App. Cas. 307.

205 Cotterell v. Jones [1851] 11 C. B. 713; Attwood v. Monger [1653] Style, 378, per Roll, C. J.; Castrique v. Behrens [1861] 3 El. & El. 720; Redway v. McAndrew [1873] L. R. 9 Q. B. 74; Quartz Hill Consol. G. Min. Co. v. Eyre, 11 Q. B. Div. 674, and [1883] 52 Law J. Q. B. 488.

206 Brown v. Chapman, 1 W. Bl. 427; Farly v. Danks [1855] 4 El. & Bl. 493; Cotton v. James, 1 Barn. & Adol. 128; Whitworth v. Hall, 2 Barn. & Adol. 695; Johnson v. Emerson [1871] L. R. 6 Exch. 329; Quartz Hill Consol. G. Min. Co. v. Eyre, 11 Q. B. Div. 674, and [1883] 52 Law J. Q. B. 488.

207 Quartz Hill Consol. G. Min. Co. v. Eyre, 11 Q. B. Div. 674, and [1883] 52 Law J. Q. B. 488.

20% Leigh v. Webb [1800] 3 Esp. 164; Elsee v. Smith [1822] 1 Dowl. & R. 28; Wyatt v. White, 5 Hurl. & N. 371, and [1860] 29 Law J. Exch. 193. And see Cooper v. Booth, 3 Esp. 144.

209 Hope v. Evered, 17 Q. B. Div. 338, and [1886] 55 Law J. M. Cas. 146.
210 Steward v. Gromett [1859] 7 C. B. (N. S.) 191; Rex v. Doherty [1810]

13 East, 171; Drummond v. Pigou [1835] 2 Bing. N. C. 114; Turner v. Turner
[1818] Gow, 20.

211 Post, p. 630.

212 Everett v. Henderson, 146 Mass. 89, 14 N. E. 932; Lauzon v. Charroux (R. I.) 28 Atl. 975; Potter v. Gjertsen, 37 Minn. 386, 34 N. W. 746. In the

Stantora

08

Preferring a bill before a grand jury is a sufficient prosecution to support an action, whether the grand jury find a true bill or not.213 With respect to the malicious institutions of civil suits, the authorities are not entirely agreed as to what cases are within the rule.214 The general tendency of the American courts would seem to be that, wherever the other elements of malicious prosecution are present, it is immaterial whether the original proceedings be civil or criminal. The broad ground is taken that the prosecution of a civil action, maliciously and without proper cause, terminating favorably to the defendant, produces an injury, for which recovery of damages lies, although there has been no interference with the person or property. An action has been held to lie for forcible entry and unlawful detainer,215 for the malicious issuance of an injunction,218 for malicious attachment,217 or garnishment,"

218

so, for

same action malicious prosecution may be united with assault and battery. Peterson v. Toner, 80 Mich. 350, 45 N. W. 346.

213 Taylor's Case [1620] Palm. 44; Jones v. Gwynn, 10 Mod. 148; Chambers v. Robinson, 2 Strange, 691; Whiteford v. Henthorn, 10 Ind. App. 97, 37 N. E. 419 (where a teacher arrested a school trustee to test his right to appoint another person and test her rights under contract). It is sufficient if the indictment contains one count which is malicious and without reasonable and proper cause. Reed v. Taylor, 4 Taunt. 616; Delisser v. Towne, 1 Q. B. 333; Boaler v. Holder, 51 J. P. 277.

214 Cooley, Torts, *p. 187; Pol. Torts, 265. And see Bowen, L. J., in Quartz Hill Consol. G. Min. Co. v. Eyre, 11 Q. B. Div. 674-690; Fivaz v. Nichols, 2 C. B. 501; Magnay v. Burt, 5 Q. B. 381. But see Cotterell v. Jones, 11 C. B. 713; Atwood v. Monger, Style, 378; Castrique v. Behrens, 3 El. & El. 720; Redway v. McAndrew, L. R. 9 Q. B. 74. See Potts v. Imlay, 4 N. J. Law, 377, commenting on early English cases.

215 Pope v. Pollock, 46 Ohio St. 367, 21 N. E. 356; Thompson v. Gatlin, 7 C. C. A. 351, 58 Fed. 534. But see Mayer v. Walter, 64 Pa. St. 283, collecting cases. Cf. Slater v. Kimbro, 91 Ga. 217, 18 S. E. 296.

216 Kohlsaat v. Crate, 144 Ill. 14, 32 N. E. 481; Newark Coal Co. v. Upson, 40 Ohio St. 17; Mark v. Hyatt, 61 Hun, 325, 15 N. Y. Supp. 885; Manlove v. Vick, 55 Miss. 567.

217 Zinn v. Rice, 154 Mass. 1, 27 N. E. 772; Tomlinson v. Warner, 9 Ohio, 104; Beyersdorf v. Sump, 39 Minn. 495, 41 N. W. 101; Hayden v. Shed, 11 Mass. 500; Nelson v. Danielson, 82 Ill. 545; Maskell v. Barker, 99 Cal. 642, 34 Pac. 340.

218 Schumann v. Torbett, 86 Ga. 25, 12 S. E. 185. Bankruptcy: Chapman v. Pickersgill, 2 Wils. 145; Farley v. Danks, 4 El. & Bl. 493. Et vide Quartz

malicious issuance of a search warrant for goods charged to have been stolen,219 but not, it would seem, for ejectment,220 or an unauthorized action in the name of another.221 But as to this there is much dispute as to principle, and almost equal division of authorities. On the one hand, it is urged that the defendant is adequately compensated for the damages he sustains by the costs allowed him; that, if such suits are allowed, vexatious litigation will be encouraged (especially since a corresponding right of action should accrue against one who defends without probable cause and with malice), whereby parties would be unfairly subjected to subsequent suits for bringing or defending actions of law. 222 To this it seems a complete answer to say that the English costs

Hill Consol. G. Min. Co. v. Eyre, 11 Q. B. Div. 674, Newark Coal Co. v. Upson, 40 Ohio St. 17; Smith v. Burrus, 106 Mo. 94, 16 S. W. 881; Butchers' Union Slaughter-House & Live Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Live Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co., 37 La. Ann. 874. But compare McNamee v. Minke, 49 Md. 122, and Krause v. Spiegel, 94 Cal. 370, 29 Pac. 707. The lawful use of process, neither arresting the person nor seizing the goods, may not be basis of action. Eberly v. Rupp, 90 Pa. St. 259.

219 Carey v. Sheets, 67 Ind. 375; Id., 60 Ind. 17; Boeger v. Langenberg, 97 Mo. 390, 11 S. W. 223; Whitson v. May, 71 Ind. 264; Miller v. Brown, 3 Mo. 127; Olson v. Tvete, 46 Minn. 225, 48 N. W. 914. Further, as to what is sufficient prosecution, see Dubois v. Keats, 11 Adol. & E. 329; Fitzjohn v. Mack· inder, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 505; Eagar v. Dyott, 5 Car. & P. 5.

220 Muldoon v. Rickey, 103 Pa. St. 110. Et vide Norcross v. Otis Bros. & Co., 152 Pa. St. 481, 25 Atl. 575; Gonzales v. Cobliner, 68 Cal. 151, 8 Pac. 697; Brown v. Cape Girardeau, 90 Mo. 377.

221 Bond v. Chapin, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 31.

222 Savill v. Roberts, 1 Ld. Raym. 374; Purton v. Honnor, 1 Bos. & P. 205; Cotterell v. Jones, 11 C. B. 713; Quartz Hill Consol. G. Min. Co. v. Eyre, 11 Q. B. Div. 674; Ray v. Law, Pet. C. C. 207, Fed. Cas. No. 11,592; Mitchell v. South Western R. Co., 75 Ga. 398; Smith v. Hintrager, 67 Iowa, 109, 24 N. W. 744; Cade v. Yocum, 8 La. Ann. 477; McNamee v. Minke, 49 Md. 122 (see Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co., 67 Md. 461, 10 Atl. 442, and 13 Atl. 632); Woodmansie v. Logan, 1 N. J. Law, 93; Potts v. Imlay, 4 N. J. Law, 330; State v. Meyer, 40 N. J. Law, 252; Kramer v. Stock, 10 Watts (Pa.) 115; Mayer v. Walter, 64 Pa. St. 283; Muldoon v. Rickey, 103 Pa. St. 110; Emerson v. Cochran, 111 Pa. St. 619, 4 Atl. 498; Smith v. Adams, 27 Tex. 28; Johnson v. King, 64 Tex. 226; 1 Swift, Dig. 492; Wetmore v. Mellinger, 64 Iowa, 741, 18 N. W. 870; Eberly v. Rupp, 90 Pa. St. 259; Lucy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 31 Wkly. Law Bul. 22; Hibbard v. Ryan, 46 Ill. App.