Gallaway v. Burr
| Decision Date | 05 October 1875 |
| Citation | 32 Mich. 332 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Asahel Gallaway v. Harvey W. Burr and another |
Heard June 17, 1875
Error to Superior Court of Detroit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
D. B & H. M. Duffield, for plaintiff in error.
A. B Maynard and E. W. Meddaugh, for defendants in error.
Gallaway sued Burr and Leonard for malicious prosecution in having him arrested on a charge of obtaining goods by false pretenses, from which he was discharged by the examining magistrate upon securing the debt, no one appearing against him.
Most of the questions raised in this case relate to the admissibility of testimony for the purpose of showing probable cause for the arrest of Gallaway by the defendants.
The true inquiry, in cases like the present, is, not what the actual facts were, whether they were such in fact as would authorize the arrest and committal of Gallaway for trial, but what the defendants had reason to believe and did believe they were. Such being the law, it is not necessary that the defendants should have actual personal knowledge of the facts upon which they acted. They could act upon facts and circumstances brought to their knowledge through the usual and ordinary business channels. They must, however, honestly believe the information thus obtained to be true, and the information must be of that character, and obtained from such sources, that business men generally, of ordinary care, prudence and discretion, would act upon it under similar circumstances, believing it to be reliable.
To hold otherwise, would be to require a complaining witness in criminal cases to have such a knowledge of all the facts as would enable him upon the examination to give evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case in all its parts. This could not often be done. He must rely upon others to establish a part of the case, and if they fail to come up to what was expected of them, and honestly relied upon, the complainant cannot thereby be said to have acted maliciously in making the complaint and causing the arrest. Besides, in a case like the present, to have required the defendants upon the examination to show, of their own knowledge, that the representations upon which Gallaway obtained the goods were false, would be to throw upon them a burden not easily borne, and which practically could not be carried out. It would be to require the merchant who has sold goods relying upon representations made to him, to travel in many cases all over the country, make personal examinations of records, and gather information from every quarter, in order to enable him to make the necessary complaint and be safe in case of a failure to show probable cause. And, even did he take all this trouble, it would still be a matter of grave doubt whether much of the information obtained by him would not be mere hearsay.
Plaintiff's counsel requested the court to charge the jury, "that the defendants cannot be protected against this action by the advice of Davison, in any way founded upon his own personal knowledge, but the only advice upon which they can shield themselves is that which was given in response to their 's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koski v. Vohs
...89 Mich. 303, 304, 50 N.W. 1074 (1891).7 Wilson v. Yono, supra.8 Thomas v. Winters, 258 Mich. 429, 432, 242 N.W. 780 (1932).9 32 Mich. 332, 335 (1875).10 See, e.g., Hall v. American Investment Co., 241 Mich. 349, 217 N.W. 18 (1928).11 Thomas v. Winters, supra.12 232 Mich. 169, 205 N.W. 138 ......
-
Hamilton v. Smith
...v. Burlingame, 8 Cow. 141; Merriam v. Mitchell, 13 Me. 439; Raulston v. Jackson, 1 Sneed 132; Faris v. Starke, 3 B. Mon., 4; Gallaway v. Burr, 32 Mich. 332; the mere belief is no evidence of probable cause, Winebiddle v. Porterfield, 9 Penn. St., 137; Lawrence v. Lanning, 4 Port. (Ind.), 19......
-
Wilkinson v. McGee
......Weed, 17 Wend. 224; [265 Mo. 583] Bacon v. Towne, 4 Cush. 217;. Thompson v. Lumley, 50 How. Pr. 105; Moore v. Sauborin, 42 Mo. 490; Gallaway v. Burr, 32. Mich. 332.] Want of probable cause and malice are the issue. in the case and it makes no difference as to the innocence of. the ......
-
El Reno Gas & Elec. Co. v. Spurgeon
...men of ordinary care, prudence, and discretion would prosecute upon it under the same conditions, there is probable cause. ¶17 Gallaway v. Burr, 32 Mich. 332; Fagnan v. Knox, 66 N.Y. 525; Heyne v. Blair, 62 N.Y. 19; Bacon v. Towne, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 217; Wheeler v. Nesbitt, 24 HOW 544, 16 L. ......