Jones v. Zimmerman
| Decision Date | 09 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 40206,40206 |
| Citation | 308 P.2d 96,180 Kan. 701 |
| Parties | Julius J. JONES, Appellee, v. H. B. ZIMMERMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Following Haines v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 108 Kan. 360, 195 P. 592, and Rowe v. Glen Elder State Bank, 132 Kan. 709, 297 P. 703, where a complaining witness in a criminal prosecution makes a true and full disclosure to a deputy county attorney of all the facts of which he has knowledge, and such official prepares a complaint for the complaining witness' signature based upon such disclosure and advises that a prosecution be instituted, the complaining witness will not be liable in damages in an action for malicious prosecution.
Fred R. Vieux, Augusta, argued the cause and William A. Kahrs and Robert H. Nelson, Wichita, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
John W. Sowers, Wichita, argued the cause for appellee.
Julius J. Jones instituted an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution against the appellant, H. B. Zimmerman and his employer, Matlock & Company, Inc., a corporation. At the trial both defendants demurred to the plaintiff's evidence. The trial court sustained the demurrer of Matlock & Company, Inc., and overruled Zimmerman's demurrer. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Zimmerman in the amount of $5,732.50. Zimmerman has appealed and has specified as error, among other things, the overruling of his demurrer to plaintiff's evidence.
The plaintiff did not file a counter abstract or brief, consequently, our review of this record is made solely upon the defendant's abstract and brief. Plaintiff's counsel below sought and was granted permission to make oral argument to this court when this cause was presented.
A summary of plaintiff's evidence as disclosed by the record, necessary to a consideration of the question presented, is as follows: The plaintiff owned real estate north of and adjoining property belonging to Lester Matlock No. 1, Inc., a corporation, and the boundary line between the two properties was in dispute. Matlock & Company, Inc., a corporation, had constructed a series of four-family dwellings on the property owned by Lester Matlock No. 1, Inc. The defendant Zimmerman was an employee of Matlock & Company, Inc., and was its construction foreman. While so employed, he constructed three permanent clothesline racks north of the northernmost portion of the four-family dwellings and had commenced the construction of a foundation and concrete forms for sidewalks and an incinerator north of the clothesline racks and on the disputed real estate. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the real estate where the incinerator foundation and sidewalk forms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Solomon v. State
-
Crow v. US
...for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim by signing a criminal complaint against the plaintiff. See, e.g., Jones v. Zimmerman, 180 Kan. 701, 703, 308 P.2d 96, 97 (1957); 52 Am.Jur.2d Malicious Prosecution §§ 23-24 at 4. Because Kansas state courts do not typically use grand juries to i......
-
Howard v. Felton
...the justice of the peace that the warrant should be issued. Wendelboe v. Jacobson, 10 Utah 2d 344, 353 P.2d 178 (1960) Jones v. Zimmerman, 180 Kan. 701, 308 P.2d 96 (1957); Thomas v. Hinton, 76 Idaho 337, 281 P.2d 1050 (1955); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Pherson, 129 Colo. 502, 272 P.2d 643 (1......
-
Steadman v. Topham
...he has a complete legal defense to an action for malicious prosecution.' A case very similar to the case at bar is Jones v. Zimmerman, 180 Kan. 701, 308 P.2d 96, 97. In that case Zimmerman informed the deputy county attorney in reference to the facts in the case. He had nothing to do with t......