Manufacturers Supply Co. v. Parker
| Decision Date | 13 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 10682,10682 |
| Citation | 103 R.I. 426,238 A.2d 616 |
| Parties | MANUFACTURERS SUPPLY CO., Inc. v. Edward F. PARKER. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is an action on the case for abuse of process. The defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration was heard and sustained by a justice of the superior court. From that ruling the plaintiff has prosecuted a bill of exceptions to this court.
The record does not disclose, nor does plaintiff in this court refer to, the particular ground or grounds upon which the demurrer was sustained by the trial justice. In such circumstance it is settled that if any ground for demurrer be valid, this court will affirm the decision of the trial justice sustaining the demurrer. Davis v. Girard, 70 R.I. 291, 38 A.2d 774.
The first ground of defendant's demurrer alleged that the declaration was vague and indefinite and so "*** uncertain that the defendant is unable to ascertain therefrom the case it is called upon to answer." We have repeatedly held that a declaration is demurrable when it is so lacking in clarity and reasonable certainty as to fail to apprise the defendant clearly of the complaint that is being brought against him. Cook v. Lester, 99 R.I. 28, 205 A.2d 143; McGarry v. Rhode Island Mutual Ins. Co., 90 R.I. 337, 158 A.2d 156.
In our opinion, the declaration in the instant case does not clearly and definitely inform the defendant whether it is stating an action for abuse of process or for the malicious use of process. There is a definite distinction between these two forms of action. It is held generally that an action for abuse of process differs from one for malicious use of process in that abuse of process is concerned with the improper use of criminal or civil process in a manner not contemplated by law, that is, a perversion of it, after it has been issued, while an action for malicious use of process is concerned with maliciously causing criminal or civil process to issue for its ostensible purpose but without probable cause. Walker v. American Security & Trust Co., 237 Md. 80, 205 A.2d 302; Publix Drug Co. v. Breyer Ice Cream Co., 347 Pa. 346, 32 A.2d 413; March v. Cacioppo, 37 Ill.App.2d 235, 185 N.E.2d 397.
In the instant declaration plaintiff alleges that "*** the defendant caused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powers v. Carvalho
...that was not within the scope of the process such as the return of property or the payment of money. Manufacturers Supply Co. v. Parker, 103 R.I. 426, 238 A.2d 616 (1968). ...
-
Bosler v. Shuck
...149, 482 P.2d 187 (1971); Casa Di Sardi, Inc. v. Alpha Motors, Inc., 277 Pa.Super. 415, 323 A.2d 288 (1974); Manufacturers Supply Co. v. Parker, 103 R.I. 426, 238 A.2d 616 (1968); Huggins v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 249 S.C. 206, 153 S.E.2d 693, 27 A.L.R.3d 1195 (1967); Layton v. Chase,......
-
Nagy v. McBurney
...for which it was not designed. Powers v. Carvalho, 117 R.I. at 527 n. 3, 368 A.2d at 1247 n. 3 (1977); Manufacturers Supply Co. v. Parker, 103 R.I. 426, 427, 238 A.2d 616, 617 (1968); Goldstein v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, 110 R.I. 580, 587, 296 A.2d 112, 116 (1972); Lauzon......
-
Goldstein v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Nat. Bank
...was proper. Abuse of process has been defined as the perversion of legal process once it has been issued. Manufacturers Supply Co. v. Parker, 103 R.I. 426, 238 A.2d 616 (1968). In order to prevail on this ground, Goldstein had to first allege that the bank has used the process to accomplish......