Gooch v. Wachowiak, 64

• Decision Date: 15 April 1958
• Docket Number: No. 64,64
• Citation: 89 N.W.2d 496,352 Mich. 347
• Parties: Burl GOOCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Max M. WACHOWIAK, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 496

89 N.W.2d 496

352 Mich. 347

Burl GOOCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Max M. WACHOWIAK, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 64.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 15, 1958.

Dee Edwards, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.

Charles A. Bryan, Detroit, for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for damages for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. At the close of plaintiff's proofs the court directed a verdict for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

At 3:50 p.m. on the date in question one Courtney Spencer tried to cash a forged Wall Wire Products payroll check in a Kroger store. The cashier sent it to the manager for approval. He called the Wall Wire Company where it was discovered that a block of 250 blank checks was missing from the storeroom and the Kroger manager was so informed. He then called police, who arrived at the store at 3:58 p.m. and arrested Spencer. Defendant was an officer of the Wall Wire Company. Later that day he was told by a police detective that Spencer had admitted his guilt and had implicated plaintiff and another, both of whom were Wall Wire Company employees who had had access to the storeroom where the missing checks had been kept, and that Spencer had stated that they had given him the check at the Kroger store parking lot for the purpose of going into the store to cash it. The detective also told defendant that the three men had had blank checks in an automobile. Plaintiff was taken into custody that same evening. A few days later, at the detective's request, defendant took from company records specimens of plaintiff's handwriting and delivered them to the sheriff's office for comparison with the handwriting on the forged check. At that time and at the direction of the detective, plaintiff wrote the name 'Bill Smith' several times and the detective compared the same with the signature 'Bill Smith' on the check in question and both the detective and defendant thought the signatures similar. After that the detective took plaintiff and Spencer to the office of the prosecuting attorney where Spencer gave a statement in plaintiff's presence. The prosecuting attorney then authorized and recommended issuance of a warrant for plaintiff and his two alleged accomplices. The detective then called defendant and told him to appear at the office of the justice of the peace for the purpose of signing a criminal complaint. At that office the defendant was shown the prosecuting attorney's recommendation for a warrant and told by the detective that the case necessitated his signing a criminal complaint. The above facts, in substance, constitute the information defendant had received when he signed the complaint. A warrant issued on which plaintiff was held in jail until the preliminary examination, at which he was discharged.

Plaintiff says that the court erred in directing a verdict for defendant and that a case was made for the jury by a showing that the plaintiff had been discharged at the preliminary examination, that he had enjoyed a good character and reputation previously, which defendant knew and failed to tell the prosecuting authorities, and that the time element was such, after plaintiff's leaving work at the Wall Wire Company at 3:30 p.m., standing in line to punch out at the time clock and to receive his paycheck, walking two blocks to a parking lot and driving from one to two miles to the Kroger store, all before 3:50 p.m., that defendant could not have had probable cause to believe plaintiff guilty of the offense as claimed by Courtney Spencer. Touching on malice, plaintiff stresses that after his arrest he was discharged from his job and not rehired after his relase on preliminary examination. Plaintiff also contends that defendant had no right to rely on information and advice received from the detective.

In Modla v. Miller, 344 Mich. 21, 73 N.W.2d 220, 221, we said:

'Essential to his right to recover is want on defendants' part of probable cause to believe him guilty of the offense charged when they initiated the prosecution. Thomas v. Bush, 200 Mich. 224, 166 N.W. 894. When a defendant in a case of malicious prosecution has in good faith fully and fairly stated all of the material facts within his knowledge to the prosecuting attorney and signed the complaint on the latter's advice, a case of probable cause is established, barring plaintiff's right to recover. Thomas v. Bush, supra; Baker v. Barach, 297 Mich. 219, 297 N.W. 472. When the facts are undisputed, want of probable cause is a question of law to be derermine by the court. Thomas v. Bush, supra; Baker v. Barach, supra. When the undisputed facts or all the testimony, construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, fail to show want of probable cause a verdict for defendant should be directed. Clanan v. Nushzno, 261 Mich. 423, 246 N.W. 168.'

There is no dispute as to the facts available to defendant and on which he relied when he signed the complaint. Accordingly, the want of probable cause on his part was a question of law for the court and the court was correct in undertaking to determine it. Thomas v. Bush, 200 Mich. 224, 166 N.W. 894; Modla v. Miller, supra; Merriam v. Continental Motors Corporation, 339 Mich. 546, 64 N.W.2d 691. In Thomas v. Winters, 258 Mich. 429, 242 N.W. 780, 781, we said:

'As to what is probable cause, we quote syllabi of Wilson v. Bowen, 64 Mich. 133, 31 N.W. 81:

"To constitute probable cause, there must be such reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant an ordinarily cautious man in...