Oldham v. Smith
| Decision Date | 10 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4-6193 |
| Citation | 147 S.W.2d 361,201 Ark. 903 |
| Parties | OLDHAM v. SMITH |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; Minor W. Millwee, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Minor Pipkin and Howard Hasting, for appellant.
J. F Quillin and Wm. P. Alexander, for appellee.
This is a suit for damages for malicious prosecution in which the plaintiff, Smith, recovered a judgment for $ 50 against the defendant, Oldham, who has appealed.
Oldham sold Smith a used 1930 Ford coupe for $ 75, of which $ 20 was paid with an older car exchanged in the trade. The balance was evidenced by a note, in which title was retained in Oldham. The note was not offered in evidence, and it does not appear in what amount, or on what dates, payments were to be made, but we gather from the testimony that the entire amount was not payable at one time.
Smith drove the car from Polk county, where it was sold, to Trumann in Poinsett county at which place it was found in Smith's possession. Smith testified that he drove the car to southeast Missouri, and then back to Trumann in search of work which he had been unable to find, and that he had so advised Oldham by letter which Oldham denied having received. Smith took with him his wife and child, and was living at the home of his mother-in-law in Trumann when arrested.
Oldham made, before a justice of the peace in Polk county, an affidavit for a warrant of arrest charging Smith with having violated the provisions of § 3212 Pope's Digest, by removing the car from Polk county where both he and Smith resided and where the car was sold, with the intention of defeating the retention of title contained in the note for the balance of purchase money due on the car. Smith was arrested at Trumann and returned to Mena, the county seat of Polk county, where, in default of bail, he was confined in the county jail for a period of seventy-nine days until his trial and acquittal before a jury at the ensuing term of the circuit court.
The suit was defended upon the ground that, before making and filing the affidavit for the warrant for Smith's arrest Oldham had made full disclosure of all the facts in the case to the deputy prosecuting attorney, and had acted upon the advice of that official.
The instructions under which the case was submitted to the jury at the trial from which is this appeal are not set out in the brief of appellant; but appellee has copied an instruction which reflects the theory upon which the case was defended, that is, that Oldham had in good faith acted upon the advice of the deputy prosecuting attorney.
Smith testified that at the time he purchased the car he told Oldham the use he intended to make of it, that is, to search for work, and that permission was given him to drive the car out of the county. The truth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Myers v. Shinn
-
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Williams
... ... Mosby, for appellee ... ... [148 S.W.2d 645] ... [201 ... Ark. 896] SMITH, J ... On ... April 12, 1939, B. Frank Williams, doing business as Williams ... Bus Line, filed an application with the ... ...
-
Parker v. Brush, 82-71
...upon the advice given, being motivated instead by his belief that Ronnie had damaged the sewer line. On this point see Oldham v. Smith, 201 Ark. 903, 147 S.W.2d 361 (1941). As to the damages, Ronnie was arrested and taken to jail, was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted, and had to rema......