George v. Williams
| Decision Date | 24 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | Civil 2125 |
| Parties | DAVID T. GEORGE, Appellant, v. JOHN M. WILLIAMS, Appellee |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. Fred L. Ingraham, Judge. Judgment reversed with directions.
Mr. H C. Kelly and Mr. Glenn Copple, for Appellant.
Mr Thomas D. Molloy, for Appellee.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, and from a judgment of dismissal.
The complaint charges that the defendant maliciously and without probable cause procured plaintiff to be arrested under a warrant issued out of the justice court of the fourth precinct of Yuma county, Arizona, on January 31, 1922, by charging that plaintiff, at said precinct, county and state had on January 27, 1922, "committed as misdemeanor, to wit, false personations, as follows, to wit: Did then and there unlawfully, willfully obtain money fraudulently, and after obtaining the same, refusing to return same to party from whom obtained"; that a trial before the justice court and a jury was had upon said charge, before the institution of this suit, and plaintiff had been acquitted and discharged.
The demurrer excepted to this complaint on the ground that the charge set out therein as the basis for issuing the warrant of arrest for plaintiff did not amount to a crime and was not therefore a malicious prosecution of plaintiff. There was also a general demurrer, but the only serious criticism of the complaint is the one pointed out by the special demurrer, and we shall direct what we have to say to that feature of the complaint only.
It is the contention of defendant that an action for damages for malicious prosecution will not lie where the facts charged by defendant against plaintiff are insufficient to constitute any offense known to the law. If he is right, then it follows the court's ruling on the special demurrer was also right. That the alleged criminal complaint falls far short of stating a crime must be admitted. It probably was an effort to charge the offense of obtaining money by false and fraudulent representations and pretenses, as defined in section 523 of the Penal Code; but, if so, it left out the ingredients of knowledge and design as also the identity of the person claimed to have been defrauded. It also fails to give the amount of money involved, and since its grade as a felony or misdemeanor depends upon that it fails to show the justice of the peace had jurisdiction. So the charge was not only lacking in substance, but there is a failure to show that the officer to whom it was addressed had power to try and determine the case. When such a state of facts is exhibited by a complaint the courts have differed as to whether the party should seek his remedy in trespass or in an action on the case for a malicious prosecution. 18 R.C.L. 20, § 10; Wadkins v. Digman, 82 W.Va. 623, 96 S.E. 1016; Hotel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuhnhausen v. Stadelman
...Dairy Co. v. Mulder, 78 Colo. 407, 242 P. 666; Crawford v. Ryan, 5 Sadler (Pa.) 205, 7 Atl. 745; Dennis v. Ryan, supra; George v. Williams, 26 Ariz. 91, 222 P. 410; Hotel Supply Co. v. Reid, supra; Humphrey v. Case, 8 Conn. 101, 20 Am. Dec. 95; Lueck v. Heisler, 87 Wis. 644, 58 N.W. 1101; M......
-
Gogue v. MacDonald
...charge. Cases in other jurisdictions support the rule of recovery in malicious prosecution when that element is present. George v. Williams, 26 Ariz. 91, 222 P. 410; Bell v. Keepers, 37 Kan. 64, 14 P. 542; Barker v. Stetson, 7 Gray 53, 73 Mass. 53, 66 Am.Dec. 457; Finn v. Frink, 84 Me. 261,......
-
State v. Smith
... ... collision with a vehicle driven by the said David Nunes ... approximately 7 miles in a westerly direction from the ... Town of Williams, Coconino County, Arizona; the said ... Chester T. E. Smith was then and there the operator of a 1935 ... Ford truck;" (Emphasis supplied.) ... It must indicate the crime charged and ... must contain a statement of the essential elements of the ... indicated crime. George v. Williams, 26 Ariz. 91, ... 222 P. 410; Elder v. United States, 9 Cir., 142 F.2d ... 199; Cochran v. United States, 157 U.S. 286, 290, 15 ... ...
-
State v. Maldonado
...588 (1875); Elder v. United States, 142 F.2d 199 (9th Cir.1944); Woolley v. United States, 97 F.2d 258 (9th Cir.1938); George v. Williams, 26 Ariz. 91, 222 P. 410 (1924)). Absent a proper information, the court does not acquire subject matter jurisdiction and any conviction must be reversed......