Massey Stores, Inc. v. Reeves
| Decision Date | 23 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 40964,No. 3,40964,3 |
| Citation | 111 Ga.App. 227,141 S.E.2d 227 |
| Parties | MASSEY STORES, INC., et al. v. Robert REEVES |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. (a) Where a citizen in good faith and with probable cause swears out a criminal warrant identifying the accused by name and the officer in whose hands the warrant is placed arrests a person bearing the identical name as the accused but who in fact was not the accused, an action for malicious prosecution will not lie against the person swearing out the warrant.
(b) A citizen is entitled to assume that a public official who has the duty to perform in the future of arresting one under a criminal warrant will subsequently properly and correctly fulfill his duty by arresting the proper person named or identified in the warrant.
The plaintiff, Robert Reeves, brought this action against Massey Stores, Inc. and T. S. Thomas, its manager, as defendants, seeking to recover for malicious prosecution.
Upon trial of the case uncontradicted evidence showed that a man named Robert Reeves, not the plaintiff in this case, but another with the same name, negotiated to defendant Massey Stores, Inc., a check payable to his order, knowing at the time that the maker of the check had stopped payment upon it. After the check had been returned unpaid to Massey Stores, Inc., its employee, defendant Thomas obtained a warrant for the arrest of that 'Robert Reeves' for cheating and swindling. The Robert Reeves for whom the warrant was obtained had by then moved away from Hall County, where the check was negotiated, to Lumpkin County, where the plaintiff lived. The warrant was sent to the Sheriff of Lumpkin County, who notified the plaintiff that there was a warrant for plaintiff's arrest and that plaintiff should 'come in and make bond.' In submission to the sheriff's instructions plaintiff appeared and gave bond. Subsequently. 'Robert Reeves' was indicated in Hall County and the plaintiff was subjected to prosecution for the criminal offense through the mistake in identity. The charge was never tried.
In the case for malicious prosecution the jury returned a verdict for damages for plaintiff and judgment was entered on the verdict. The defendants except to the judgments of the trial court overruling their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and overruling their motion for new trial.
Stewart, Sartain & Carey, Joe B. Sartain, Jr., Gainesville, T. Penn McWhorter, Winder, for plaintiffs in error.
Brannon, Brannon & Schuder, E. C. Brannon, Jr., Gainesville, for defendant in error.
1. This is an action for malicious prosecution. It involves mistaken identity.
The evidence is uncontradicted that there never was a warrant issued for the arrest of the plaintiff in this case. The fact that the defendants, with probable cause, obtained a warrant meant for another person having the identical name of plaintiff cannot be expanded to infer that the defendant intended maliciously for just any person of that name or this plaintiff to be prosecuted for the offense.
The evidence is uncontradicted that the defendants, for value given, received a worthless check from one Robert Reeves who knew at the time that the check was valueless and to that degree the defendants were cheated and swindled by him. The law prohibits cheating and swindling and seeks to restrain its occurrence by threat of criminal punishment for those guilty of its commission. It is in the public interest for citizens to report to governmental law enforcement authorities those who perpetrate the crime. It is certainly every citizen's right to do so.
It is the duty of law enforcement officers in serving criminal warrants to act with due diligence and in good faith to be certain that the proper person is served or apprehended. As stated by Presiding Justice Cobb in Blocker v. Clark, 126 Ga. 484, 488-489, 54 S.E. 1022, 1023-1024, 7 L.R.A., N.S., 268, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. City of Annapolis
...of that name or this plaintiff to be prosecuted for the offense. Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Massey Stores, Inc. v. Reeves , 111 Ga.App. 227, 141 S.E.2d 227, 228 (1965) ). Further, because "the uncontradicted evidence shows that there never was a warrant sworn out charging this appe......
-
Wilson v. Bonner, 64880
...intended maliciously for just any person of that name or this plaintiff to be prosecuted for the offense." Massey Stores v. Reeves, 111 Ga.App. 227, 228, 141 S.E.2d 227 (1965). "Since the uncontradicted evidence shows that there never was a warrant sworn out charging this [appellant], the p......
-
Reese v. Clayton County
...a warrant for plaintiff, as to her the warrant issued was void. Wilson v. Bonner, 166 Ga.App. 9, 10, 303 S.E.2d 134 (1983); Massey Stores v. Reeves, 111 Ga.App. 227, [185 Ga.App. 208] 230, 141 S.E.2d 227 (1965). Her arrest was, in effect, without a warrant and was therefore "unlawful detent......
-
Barnett v. Cal M. Inc.
...officer arrests a person bearing that name but who is not in fact the person against whom the complaint was made. Massey Stores, Inc. v. Reeves, 111 Ga.App. 227, 141 S.E.2d 227; Prosser, Torts § 12 (3d Ed.1964). Plaintiff has not shown that any genuine issue of material fact exists between ......