Bridsall v. Smith
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Writing for the Court | HOOKER |
| Citation | 158 Mich. 390,122 N.W. 626 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 1909 |
| Parties | BRIDSALL v. SMITH et al. |
158 Mich. 390
122 N.W. 626
BRIDSALL
v.
SMITH et al.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
Oct. 4, 1909.
Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.
Action by Martin P. Birdsall against Eldon Smith and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before OSTRANDER, HOOKER, MOORE, McALVAY, and BROOKE, JJ.
[122 N.W. 626]
Elvin Swarthout (Clapperton & Owen, of counsel), for appellant.
John E. Bird, Atty. Gen., Thomas A. Lawler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Moses Taggart, City Atty., and R. M. Ferguson, Asst. City Atty., for appellees.
HOOKER, J.
The plaintiff, a vendor of milk, was prosecuted upon the complaint of defendant Howe for selling adulterated milk. Being acquitted upon a trial, he brought this action for malicious prosecution against Howe and two other defendants. The learned circuit judge directed a verdict for defendants upon the grounds: (1) That the plaintiff had failed to prove a want of probable cause for the complaint; (2) that there was no evidence tending to show a conspiracy between the defendants to wrongfully prosecute; (3) that, there being no proof of a want of probable cause, the question of defendant's motives was unimportant. Defendant Howe was employed in the office of the dairy and food commissioner at Lansing, the other defendants were local food inspectors acting under appointment by the Commissioner. Howe had no acquaintance with either of the other defendants. His connection with the case began with a direction
[122 N.W. 627]
from the dairy and food commissioner to go to Grand Rapids and make a complaint against defendant, based upon a report of an analysis of a certain quantity of milk sold by the plaintiff, and stated in the report as contained in half-pint bottle, which said report, made by the state analyst, showed to be adulterated. His action in the matter ended by his drawing, subscribing, and swearing to the complaint and filing it with the justice, who presumably took such testimony as may have been presented, and issued the warrant upon which plaintiff was arrested. There is an absence of testimony tending to show Howe's connection with any conspiracy to wrong plaintiff, and there is no testimony indicating that he did any further or other act in the premises than as hereinbefore stated, or that he had or took any personal interest in the matter. As to him, the only question that need be considered is whether the undisputed evidence shows that there was probable cause. As there is no conflict in relation to the facts, this was a question for the court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyatt v. Cole Ii, No. 91-126
...under the circumstances of this case, lack of probable cause can only be shown through proof of subjective bad faith. Birdsall v. Smith, 158 Mich. 390, 394, 122 N.W. 626, 627 (1909). Thus the subjective element dismissed as exceptional by the dissent may be the rule rather than the exceptio......
-
Diamond v. Pa. State Educ. Ass'n, Nos. 19-2812
...lack of probable cause can only be shown through proof of subjective bad faith." Id. at 174, 112 S.Ct. 1827 (citing Birdsall v. Smith , 158 Mich. 390, 122 N.W. 626, 627 (1909) ). Further, five Justices agreed that a "good-faith defense" in this context represented both the plaintiff's burde......
-
Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, No. 92-1424
...under the circumstances of this case, lack of probable cause can only be shown through proof of subjective bad faith. Birdsall v. Smith, 158 Mich. 390, 394, 122 N.W. 626, 627 (1909). Thus the subjective element dismissed as exceptional by the dissent may be the rule rather than the Wyatt, -......
-
Wyatt v. Cole, No. 90-1058
...of unconstitutionality, is considered reasonable as a matter of law." Id. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1837 (citing Birdsall v. Smith, 158 Mich. 390, 122 N.W. 626, 627 (1909)). In addition, " '[t]he layman's ignorance of the law has been taken into account in the almost universal holding that prob......
-
Wyatt v. Cole Ii, No. 91-126
...under the circumstances of this case, lack of probable cause can only be shown through proof of subjective bad faith. Birdsall v. Smith, 158 Mich. 390, 394, 122 N.W. 626, 627 (1909). Thus the subjective element dismissed as exceptional by the dissent may be the rule rather than the exceptio......
-
Diamond v. Pa. State Educ. Ass'n, Nos. 19-2812
...lack of probable cause can only be shown through proof of subjective bad faith." Id. at 174, 112 S.Ct. 1827 (citing Birdsall v. Smith , 158 Mich. 390, 122 N.W. 626, 627 (1909) ). Further, five Justices agreed that a "good-faith defense" in this context represented both the plaintiff's burde......
-
Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, No. 92-1424
...under the circumstances of this case, lack of probable cause can only be shown through proof of subjective bad faith. Birdsall v. Smith, 158 Mich. 390, 394, 122 N.W. 626, 627 (1909). Thus the subjective element dismissed as exceptional by the dissent may be the rule rather than the Wyatt, -......
-
Wyatt v. Cole, No. 90-1058
...of unconstitutionality, is considered reasonable as a matter of law." Id. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1837 (citing Birdsall v. Smith, 158 Mich. 390, 122 N.W. 626, 627 (1909)). In addition, " '[t]he layman's ignorance of the law has been taken into account in the almost universal holding that prob......