Cooper v. Associated Laundries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 18338 |
| Citation | 83 S.W.2d 591 |
| Parties | COOPER v. ASSOCIATED LAUNDRIES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Allen C. Southern, Judge.
“ Not to be published in State Reports.”
Action by J. A. Cooper against the Associated Laundries, Inc., and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Robert O. McLin, of Kansas City, for appellants.
Al Lebrecht, of Kansas City, for respondent.
CAMPBELL, Commissioner.
This is an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Trial to the court with a jury resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants have appealed.
Plaintiff was employed by the defendant Associated Laundries, Inc., hereinafter called company, in May, 1932, to solicit laundry to be delivered to the company and, when the company had prepared the laundry, to return it to the customers. Upon returning laundry to customers, it was plaintiff’s duty to collect the charges for laundry service and pay the same to the company. Plaintiff was discharged Saturday, July 2, 1932. He retained the sum of $35.78 which he had received from customers. Some days later the defendant Stewart called on plaintiff and demanded that the latter pay to the company the sum of $35.78. Plaintiff replied in substance that under the terms of his employment he was entitled to two weeks’ notice of discharge, and that he was therefore entitled to two weeks’ salary in the amount of $40. Later, the defendants Stewart and Adams called on plaintiff, demanded payment of the sum claimed to be owing, and, among other things, said to plaintiff that "if you don’t take care of this matter we are going to make it plenty tough for you." On September 1, 1932, the company obtained a judgment against Cooper in the sum of $35.78. The plaintiff herein, however, claims that he was not served with summons in the suit before the justice and was not aware that such suit had been brought. On October 5, 1932, the defendants Stewart and Adams made written statements to an assistant prosecuting attorney for Jackson county, Mo., in which they stated in substance that Cooper had made collections in the sum of $35.78 of money which belonged to the company and that he had not accounted for the same. On the next day plaintiff was arrested upon a charge of embezzlement by bailee. He was arraigned before Justice of the Peace Cowan, and, failing to furnish appearance bond, was committed to the county jail. While plaintiff was in police headquarters, he called his brother-in-law, Dr. Beal, requesting the latter to furnish appearance bond for him. Thereupon Dr. Beal talked to the defendant Adams and arranged to meet the latter. Following the conversation, Dr. Beal went to the company’s place of business and paid the amount of the company’s claim, $35.78, believing that such payment would dispose of the criminal charge. Latter he learned that such payment did not operate as a discharge of his brother-in-law, and he then went to the court of the justice, furnished appearance bond for Cooper, and obtained his release. On October 7 Cooper appeared in the court of the justice of the peace for preliminary examination. Prior thereto, without the knowledge of Cooper, the defendants Stewart and Adams called on the assistant prosecuting attorney, stated the facts to him concerning the payment of the company’s claim, and thereupon the assistant prosecuting attorney directed the justice to dismiss the criminal action. On October 7, Cooper, Stewart, and Adams went to the office of the justice of the peace, and said individual defendants told Cooper that he should pay the costs of the prosecution in the sum of $12.50. Thereupon Cooper paid the costs. The case was dismissed by the prosecuting attorney at the request of the defendants.
The defendants say that the petition was insufficient, in that it failed to allege "such a termination of the criminal case as to justify a suit for malicious prosecution." The precise contention is that, though the petition alleged that the criminal action was dismissed, such dismissal was not a termination of the cause. The defendants rely upon the following cases: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial