Ferguson v. Arnow

• Decision Date: 05 June 1894
• Citation: 37 N.E. 626,142 N.Y. 580
• Parties: FERGUSON v. ARNOW et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

142 N.Y. 580

37 N.E. 626

FERGUSON

v.ARNOW et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 5, 1894.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

Action by John D. Ferguson against Thomas C. Arnow and others for malicious prosecution. From a judgment of the general term (21 N. Y. Supp. 308) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

J. W. Bartram, for appellants.

Wm. C. Reddy, for respondent.

EARL, J.

A party who brings an action for malicious prosecution against a plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in a civil action should not be permitted to recover without very clear and satisfactory proof of all the fundamental facts constituting his case. Such actions should not be encouraged. The costs awarded to a successful defendant in a civil action are the indemnity which the law gives him for a groundless prosecution. Public policy requires that parties may freely enter the courts to settle their grievances, and that they may do this without imminent exposure to a suit for damages in case of an adverse decision by judge or jury. Among other things, the plaintiff was bound to show in this action a want of probable cause for the action the defendants brought against him, and in this, we think, he utterly failed, and the trial judge, upon the undisputed evidence, should have nonsuited him. There was a highway in front of the defendants' land, which had existed from some time prior to 1804. In 1888 and 1889 it was about four rods wide. The highway commissioner of the town claimed that, as originally laid out, it was five rods wide, and that it had been encroached upon by the veranda of the defendants' house, and by their fences, and he gave them notice of the encroachments, requiring their removal. This they refused, and then he caused them to be removed, the plaintiff being one of the principal actors engaged under the commissioner in the removal. The defendants then commenced an action of trespass against the plaintiff and others to recover damages for the removal of the veranda and fences, and in that action they obtained an order for the arrest of the defendants therein, and they were arrested and released upon giving the proper undertaking. The action was put at issue by the answer of the defendants, and it was subsequently brought to trial at a circuit court. There evidence was given upon both sides, and the case was submitted to a jury, who rendered a verdict for the defendants. Thereafter this plaintiff commenced this action for malicious prosecution of that action, and he recovered a judgment, which is brought under review by this appeal.

The three defendants other than Thomas C. Arnow are women,...