Meadows v. Green, B--5111
| Citation | 524 S.W.2d 509 |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. B--5111,B--5111 |
| Parties | A. K. MEADOWS, Petitioner, v. James A. GREEN et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Louis M. Moore, Houston, for petitioner.
Fulbright & Jaworski, Thomas P. Sartwelle, Houston, for respondents.
James A. Green, Jr., and A. K. Meadows entered into a custom brokerage house business in Houston in 1967. Disagreements arose over whether Meadows was a partner or an employee and whether or not Meadows had used business funds to pay personal debts. The business relationship was terminated in 1969. Green reported to the Harris County District Attorney's office that Meadows was his employee and that he had misapplied company funds. The district attorney presented this matter to the grand jury which returned two felony indictments for embezzlement. Meadows was tried and acquitted.
This suit was then filed by Meadows for malicious prosecution and a partnership accounting. The jury found that the business was a partnership; Green did not relate fairly and honestly all material facts about the business relationship to the district attorney's office; the prosecution was instituted by or through Green's aid and cooperation; Green acted without probable cause and with malice; Meadows was innocent; and substantial damages. Judgment was entered for Meadows for $27,921.35. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered as to the action for an accounting, which is not before us, and reversed and remanded the cause of action for malicious prosecution. 517 S.W.2d 799. We reverse and remand to the Court of Civil Appeals.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that Green failed to preserve any challenges to the factual sufficiency of the evidence and that there is some evidence to support the jury's findings of the necessary elements of the cause of action. However, the court found that Meadows failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Green was actuated by malice in presenting the matter to the district attorney and therefore remanded the cause to the District Court.
The points of error attacking factual sufficiency of the evidence before the Court of Civil Appeals are in proper form, but the only complaints in the trial court were Green's contentions that error was committed in submitting issues to the jury and in rendering judgment on the verdict. Those complaints do not go to the great weight and preponderance, or factual sufficiency, of the evidence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metzger v. Sebek
...799, 810 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1974) (quoting 54 C.J.S. Malicious Prosecution § 20 (1948)), rev'd on other grounds, 524 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.1975). The court, sitting as the trier of fact on this particular issue, found that there was probable cause in this case. This finding is sup......
-
Ellis County State Bank v. Keever
...(adverse possession). What we said with regard to the standard of review for malicious prosecution cases in Meadows v. Green, 524 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex.1975) (per curiam), is also applicable in the trial The requirement of clear and convincing evidence is merely another method of stating tha......
-
In the Interest of K.R.
...is "merely another method of stating that a cause of action must be supported by factually sufficient evidence." See Meadows v. Green, 524 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. 1975). Burden of Traditionally, there has been only one burden of proof or quantum of evidence necessary to determine fact questio......
-
Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. v. Lieck
...must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, in Texas, only two standards of evidentiary review exist. Meadows v. Green, 524 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex.1975). These points do not correspond to either standard, and do not raise a valid point of Moreover, this case was submitted to the......