34 S.E. 531 (N.C. 1899), Welch v. Cheek

Citation:34 S.E. 531, 125 N.C. 353
Opinion Judge:FAIRCLOTH, C.J.
Party Name:WELCH v. CHEEK.
Attorney:J. A. Barringer, for appellant. J. T. Morehead, for appellee.
Case Date:December 05, 1899
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Page 531

34 S.E. 531 (N.C. 1899)

125 N.C. 353




Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 5, 1899

Appeal from superior court, Randolph county; Shaw, Judge.

Action by C. H. Welch against Josiah Cheek. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Where, in an action for malicious prosecution in causing plaintiff's arrest for embezzlement, defendant pleaded that there was no trial of such charge, because plaintiff prevailed on defendant to drop the matter, such allegation raised an important issue, which was properly submitted to the jury, on which their affirmative finding was conclusive of the action, since a discontinuance of the prosecution at plaintiff's request precluded his recovery.

Page 532

J. A. Barringer, for appellant.

J. T. Morehead, for appellee.


This is an action for malicious prosecution. In the criminal action the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had embezzled $100 of plaintiff's money, which was denied. The plaintiff in this action was arrested under a warrant, and he alleges that it was done maliciously, and without probable cause. The defendant avers, in his answer, that "the plaintiff prevailed on the defendant to let the matter drop, which was not done voluntarily by the defendant; on the contrary, there was no trial by the consent and at the procurement of the plaintiff," and that he paid some of the costs which had accrued. The jury rendered a verdict on the first, second, and fourth issues in favor of the plaintiff. The third issue, "Did the plaintiff compromise said action with the defendant, and agree to and consent to the ending of the action before J. P. Philips, justice of the peace?" was answered "Yes" after the evidence was heard. The above quotation from the answer, first above copied, we think raised an important issue, and was not merely an evidentiary fact, as insisted by the plaintiff, and was properly submitted to the jury. It is a settled rule that, before an action like the present, to recover damages, can be maintained, the criminal action must have terminated in some way, either by nol. pros., verdict, or quashing, etc. When, however, the termination has been induced and brought about by the defendant, he cannot maintain an action for damages. "Where a nol. pros. is entered by the procurement of the party prosecuted, or by his consent or by compromise...

To continue reading