Fowle v. Fowle, 602
Decision Date | 24 February 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 602,602 |
Citation | 140 S.E.2d 398,263 N.C. 724 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Mary P. FOWLE v. Dr. Willis H. FOWLE, III. |
Ottway Burton, Asheboro, for plaintiff appellant.
L. T. Hammond, Sr., L. T. Hammond, Jr., Ferree, Anderson & Ogburn, Asheboro, for defendant appellee.
This action was originally brought against Dr. Willis H. Fowle, III, Dr. E. D. Shackelford and Dr. T. R. Cleek, to recover damages for the detention of plaintiff in a state hospital for mentally disordered persons, arising out of a judicial proceeding under Article 3, Chapter 122, General Statutes of North Carolina. A joint written demurrer filed by defendants Drs. Shackelford and Cleek was sustained and the plaintiff appealed. This Court, at the Fall Term 1961, in an opinion reported in 255 N.C. 720, 122 S.E.2d 722, sustained the demurrer on authority of Bailey v. McGill, 247 N.C. 286, 100 S.E.2d 860 and Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468, 80 S.E.2d 248.
An examination of the complaint herein leaves one in doubt as to whether the plaintiff is seeking recovery on an action for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or abuse of process.
In the case of Melton v. Rickman, 225 N.C. 700, 36 S.E.2d 276, 162 A.L.R. 793, this Court said: 'At common law there were a number of related causes of action devised to afford a remedy against the wrongful invasion of the liberty of an individual through the processes of the courts.
'To sustain an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must show malice, want of probable cause, and the favorable termination of the former procceding.
'One who uses legal process to compel a person to do some collateral act not within the scope of the process or for the purpose of oppression or annoyance is liable in damages in a common law action for abuse of process.
There is no evidence of false imprisonment. The plaintiff was committed pursuant to a duly issued order of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Randolph County as authorized by statute. Moreover, the plaintiff's evidence clearly establishes the fact that the proceeding which she alleges was maliciously instituted, was used only for the purpose for which it was intended, and the result accomplished was warranted and commanded by the writ. Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to support an action based on abuse of process. Ledford v. Smith, 212 N.C. 447, 193 S.E. 722; Carpenter, Baggott & Co. v. Hanes, 167 N.C. 551, 83 S.E. 577; Hauser v. Bartow, 273 N.Y. 370, 7 N.E.2d 268.
Consequently, in our opinion, the complaint only states a cause of action for malicious prosecution. Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E.2d 223, and cited cases.
Article 3, Chapter 1232 of the 1957 Session Laws of North Carolina, codified as G.S. § 122-35.1 through G.S. § 122-65, was in effect until 1 July 1963, the effective date of Chapter 1184 of the 1963 Session Laws of North Carolina. Therefore, the law in effect on 28 January 1960 is applicable in this case.
G.S. § 122-46 was in effect on 28 January 1960 and, among other things, provided:
In view of the fact that neither the institution of the proceeding complained of, nor the order of the clerk entered therein, 'shall have the effect of creating any presumption that such person is legally incompetent for any purpose'; and the further fact that the plaintiff is entitled upon a motion for nonsuit to have her evidence considered in the light most favorable to her, we hold that the evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Evans v. Pitt Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...misapplication of that process after issuance to accomplish some purpose not warranted or commanded by the writ.” Fowle v. Fowle, 263 N.C. 724, 728, 140 S.E.2d 398, 401 (1965); see Chidnese v. Chidnese, 210 N.C.App. 299, 310, 708 S.E.2d 725, 734–35 (2011) ( “Abuse of process requires both a......
-
Fox v. City of Greensboro
...misuse or misapplication of that process ... to accomplish some purpose not warranted or commended by the writ." Fowle v. Fowle , 263 N.C. 724, 728, 140 S.E.2d 398, 401 (1965) (citations omitted); see also Melton v. Rickman , 225 N.C. 700, 703, 36 S.E.2d 276, 278 (1945) ("[M]alicious prosec......
-
Stanback v. Stanback
...v. Somers, 213 N.C. 209, 195 S.E. 382 (1938); Railroad Co. v. Hardware Co., 138 N.C. 174, 50 S.E. 571 (1905). In Fowle v. Fowle, 263 N.C. 724, 728, 140 S.E.2d 398, 401 (1965), it was observed that "abuse of process is the misuse of legal process for an ulterior purpose. It consists in the m......
-
Hill v. Hill
...issued process whereby a result not lawfully or properly obtainable under it is attempted to be secured.' " Fowle v. Fowle, 263 N.C. 724, 728, 140 S.E.2d 398, 401 (1965) (quoting Melton v. Rickman, 225 N.C. 700, 703, 36 S.E.2d 276, 278 (1945)). Evidence is insufficient to support an action ......
-
Chapter 1 ABUSE OF PROCESS
..."act"); Edwards v. Jenkins, 247 N.C. 565, 101 S.E.2d 410 (1958); You v. Roe, 97 N.C. App. 1, 387 S.E.2d 188 (1990).[19] Fowle v. Fowle, 263 N.C. 724, 140 S.E.2d 398 (1965) (defendant allegedly had plaintiff "unlawfully" committed to state hospital for mentally disordered persons). See also ......
-
Chapter 24 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
...on prosecutor's honest belief in guilt based on reasonable grounds; it is case of apparent, rather than actual, guilt); Fowle v. Fowle, 263 N.C. 724, 140 S.E.2d 398 (1965) (acquittal by court of competent jurisdiction does not make out prima facie case of want of probable cause); Carson v. ......